Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85880 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10365 of 2025 Applicant :- Nanhe Alias Naseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 01.03.2025. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.318 of 2024, under Sections 65(2), 296 B.N.S. and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have shown some indecent video to the daughter of the informant aged about 8 years and had committed rape with her on 04.07.2024 at about 2:00 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about twelve hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. It is true that the age of the victim is 8 years old, but it is a clear-cut case of false implication. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the the informant is the sister-in-law of the applicant and she lives separately to her husband and is living with somebody else as live-in partner and she often visits her husband's house and continuously demands a part of the said property inherited by her husband. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 25.07.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on paragraph 15 of the judgment of Kerala High Court At Ernakulam passed in CRL. MC. NO.714 OF 2022, 2024:KER:49601 on 25.06.2024, which reads as under: "15. Before parting, it is inevitable to say something regarding the way and the manner, in which, offences coming under the PoCSO Act, were registered and investigated. No doubt, the provisions of the PoCSO Act are so harsh and the punishment also too severe. Thus, misuse of the provisions could be resorted to, by falsely implicating innocent persons with ulterior motives, due to rivalry in between somebody connected with minor/s. Similarly, in matrimonial disputes in between husband and wife, their minor child/children would be meddled and weaponized to wreck vengeance at the teeth of the PoCSO Act, to avoid claim for custody by the father. Remotely, for other reasons also, misuse of the provisions of the PoCSO Act is being opted by some ill motivated litigants. Thus, chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be allowed to give vent to their frustration, by cheaply misusing the provisions of penal law. Therefore, the police officers and courts should always be very vigilant, while addressing the allegations, so as to separate husk from the grist." 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it has become a trend that the provisions of POCSO Act are being misused in matrimonial matters, so is the instant case, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant has misused his clout and had shown an indecent video to the victim aged about 8 years and had even committed aggravated sexual assault with her, which tentamounts to rape, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the facts of the case referred above by the counsel for the applicant are not pari-materia to the instant case and the applicant is stated to have shown indecent video to the victim who is of impressionable age i.e. 8 years old only, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 13. 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 :- 21.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad