Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50880 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5741 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Aamir Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Aamish, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Aamir, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records. 3. The vakalatnama of Sri Mohd. Aamir is not on record, despite the fact that his name is printed in the cause list. 4. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it. 5. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant - Abdul seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 506 of 2024, under Sections 65(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 and Section 4(2) Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad. 6. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 11.10.2024 by Sajo against the applicant alleging therein that her daughter is aged about 14 years. The accused Abdul, who is her neighbour was sitting on the roof and watching mobile and when her daughter went to the bathroom, the accused jumped and came therein and outraged the modesty of the girl and committed illegal act on her. On her alarm, he ran away from the bathroom to his roof. The incident is dated 10.10.2024 at about 2:30 p.m. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the neighbour of the first informant and while placing paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the implication of the applicant is for malicious reasons to blackmail him. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S., which would go to show that the prosecution case is not consistent. It is submitted that as per medical examination, the victim is aged about 14 years. It is further submitted that the applicant was not involved in the present case but has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 12.10.2024. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is aged about 14 years. It is submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and also in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation and there are allegations against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The reason given in paragraph 7 for false implication is not supported by any cogent evidence and is also at this stage not convincing. The victim is minor girl aged about 14 year. No ground for bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad