Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40649 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6119 of 2025 Applicant :- Pankaj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, holding brief of Sri Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.D. Shah, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 409 of 2024, under Sections 147, 376, 313, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is true that the bail application of co-accused persons Gajendra and Pushpendra has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 but the case of the applicant is at better footing. Although, the allegations against the applicant are on the graver pedestal to the co-accused persons whose bail application has been rejected. It is next stated that the main ground for grant of bail to the applicant is that the said pen drive has not been verified by the Investigating Officer and there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as such the allegations are per se false. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the case of the applicant is much more grave to the co-accused persons whose bail application has been rejected. The applicant is one of the main perpetrator of crime who had administered pills to the victim for getting her fetus aborted, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is one of the main accused persons and the victim has nominated him, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. 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. 9. 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 :- 20.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad