HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33890 of 2025 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Sanjay Kumar Rajbhar, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant bail application, the applicant-Kishor Prajapati, seeks bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64, 143, 61(2) of B.N.S. read with Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Section 3/4 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Marihan, District Mirzapur. 3. The F.I.R. alleges that two named accused had got enticed away minor daughter of the informant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. allegation of enticement has been named those two named accused with the allegation that they got enticed the minor daughter of the informant aged about 17 years and had sent her to Rajasthan. When the victim was recovered her statements under Section 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. were recorded wherein she made allegation of enticement against one named accused and made false allegation of rape against the applicant but in her medical examination her hymen was found ruptured and old healed. There are material contradictions in her Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kusum Mishra, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kishor Prajapati .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) both the statements. No such incident ever took place and the applicant has not committed any such offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He next submits that applicant is in jail since 02.05.2025, having no criminal history. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of applicant by contending that though the victim in her both the statements had made allegation of enticement against the two named accused in which applicant's name does not find place, but she has also made specific allegation against the applicant by stating that the applicant committed her rape thereafter she was sold by the applicant and one named accused-Krishnawati in two lakh rupees to one Shravan , who also committed her rape. Thus, there is specific allegation of rape and selling the victim against the applicant, therefore, innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. 6. 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 and considering the fact that there is specific allegation of rape and selling the victim against the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case for bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Kishor Prajapati is rejected. October 7, 2025 Mustaqeem. BAIL No. 33890 of 2025 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad