HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22939 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. List revised. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant , Sri Jai Ram Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire material available on record. 2. The applicant-Neeraj has filed the instant bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Sections 64(2) (m), 351 (3) B.N.S., Police Station Haliya, District MIrzapur during the pendency of the trial. 3. The prosecution story is that the informant's lodged a F.I.R. dated 01.04.2025 with regard to the incident alleged to have taken place on 07.11.2024 with the averments that her daughter, who is dumb aged about 26 years was married five years back with one Kanhaiya Lal, who is handicapped and after the marriage her husband had gone to Hyderabad for the livelihood of family. The applicant on the pretext of marriage and had established corporeal relationship with her daughter, who also became pregnant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delayed F.I.R. has been lodged without there being any plausible explanation of such delay. He further submits that the victim is major aged about 28 years and is mother of two children. Learned counsel further argued that initially F.i.R., was lodged under Section 69 and 351 (2) of B.N.S., but after investigation charge sheet has been under Section 64 (2) (m) and 351 (3) of B.N.S. Learned counsel further argued that perusal of the statements of the victim as well as F.I.R., go to show that there are material contradictions between the same. He further submits that no specific date and time has disclosed by the victim as well as by the informant. Learned counsel further argued that first informant's had earlier made a complaint dated 10.03.2025 at Police Station Haliya, District Mirzapur levelling similar allegations against her Devar (brother-in-law) and that the victim had conceived from that relationship on account of which her husband did not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dinesh Kumar, G.A., Janardan Yadav Neeraj .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) accept her and therefore the allegation that the victim became pregnant from the relationship of applicant is wholly false. It is thus contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 02.04.2025. It is thus contended that the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that now the child has also been born. He next submits that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the victim is dumb, who in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S., through Special Educator as well as in her statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S., have levelled specific allegations against the applicant. The medical evidence also corroborates with the prosecution version. 7. Keeping in view submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence, nature of allegations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any good reason to exercise my discretion in favour of the accused-applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. October 16, 2025 S.Ali BAIL No. 22939 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad