Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50134 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11408 of 2025 Applicant :- Sakib @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey,Vishal Ohri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 27.2.2025. 2. Heard Sri Anand Ji Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2024, U/S 65(1), 137(2), 115(2), 70(2) B.N.S. and 5(g)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have forcibly taken the victim by car and had committed rape with her on 6.10.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5. 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. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. There is a contradictory statement of the victim regarding the place of occurrence as stated in the site plan. As per her statement, he occurrence is stated to be car but the site plan shows to be a house, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. The medical report does not indicate about the duration of the injury sustained and the doctor could not opine about the victim being subjected to sexual assault. 9. As per school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is 27.10.2009, as such, she falls marginally less than 15 years. The said document has no evidentiary value as per Section 94 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, 10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.10.2024 having a criminal history of one case, which stands explained. and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the victim is minor and she has been subjected to sexual assault by the applicant, which stands corroborated by the injury report, as she has sustained injuries all over her body. There are injuries on her abdomen and on her right shoulder. There is contusion on her left thigh and there is abrasion on the back of her left forearm also, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The medical examination was conducted promptly on 7.10.2024 itself. CONCLUSION: 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the age of the victim coupled by the fact that the victim has sustained injuries on her body, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 15. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 16. 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. 17. 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 :- 8.4.2025\Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad