Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67921 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5612 of 2025 Applicant :- Shivanshu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 594 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 137(2), 127(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kant, District - Shahjahanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 04.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The victim is about 16 years old as per ossification test report. The FIR is delayed by about 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant wants to purchase a land belonging to the applicant falling behind one medical college, as such, he has foisted this case against him. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has sustained injuries on her private parts which has been mentioned in her medical examination report. The victim is minor and the FIR is prompt and has been instituted within 10 hours of the incident, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the age of the victim and the FIR is prompt coupled by the fact that the victim has sustained injuries on her vital parts of the body, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date:- 30.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad