Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61514 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6898 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajkumar Patel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 15.3.2025. 4. Heard 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. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.2 of 2025, U/S 65(2), 131, 351(3) B.N.S., 5m/6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(V), 3(2)va of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Erach, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 6. On 3.1.2025 at about 12.00 noon, the applicant is stated to have completely disrobed the daughter of the informant by taking her behind the kiosk and was about to commit rape with her, but the wife of the informant found the victim and the applicant in the said compromising state. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 7. 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. 8. The occurrence is stated to be in the mid of the day and it is not possible for a person to commit such offence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the site plan, which has been filed as Annexure- 3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application, whereby the place of occurrence has been marked as 'X', which indicates that there is a house of one Badshah just opposite to the said place of occurrence, as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 9. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant is 52 years old. It is true that the victim is 8 years old but it is a case of false implication. The instant FIR has been instituted out of vengeance, as the applicant had an altercation with the informant in the evening of 3.1.2025, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 10. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.1.2025 having no criminal history 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 was of tender age i.e. 8 years old only and the applicant had enticed her away and completely disrobed her, which shows his malafide intention and there is no cogent reason on behalf of the applicant explaining the false implication, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the tender age of the victim and also the fact that FIR has been instituted the same day within 10 hours of the incident, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 13. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 14. 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. 15. 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 :- 23.4.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad