Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81515 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6404 of 2025 Applicant :- Monu Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shweta Singh Rana Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 13.1.2025. 2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shweta Singh Rana, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, U/S 65 B.N.S., 6 POCSO Act, Police Station Banpur, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed aggravated sexual assault with the daughter of the informant on 28.10.2024 at about 3.00 pm by fingering. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. It is further stated that FIR is prompt, as it was instituted after about 10 hours in the night of 28/29.10.2024 and she was medically examined on 29.10.2024 at 3.20 pm i.e. within a duration of about 24 hours and the doctor concerned has not observed any injury on the private part of the victim. Had it been so, he would have observed it. 7. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the statement of the doctor concerned, which was recorded by the investigating officer and he has stated that the informant has escalated the allegations and her statement is filled up with embellishments, as such, cannot be relied upon. It is a clear cut case of false implication. It is stated that there is a property dispute between the parties. 8. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was of tender age i.e. 3 years only and it is not a case of grievous injury, rather, the matter itself is serious in nature. The injury was such that the victim sustained certain swelling on her body part, which was but natural to subside within a period of 24 hours and the statement of the victim is consistent when recorded u/s 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., as such, the prosecution story, as narrated in the FIR, stands corroborated. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the medical report being contradictory to the allegations made in the FIR, although it is true that the victim is of a very tender age, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Monu Prajapati involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 16.5.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad