Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79972 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10458 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdul Rahman @ Munna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Onkar Nath Shukla Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Chandra Bhan, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.95 of 2024, under Sections 354Ka, 376AB, 506 IPC and 5L, M/6, 9L, M/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the minor daughter of the informant to his place and harassed her and had forced her to masturbate, whereby the applicant is stated to have ejaculated on 07.03.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. 6. The victim has narrated the said story to the informant and the informant instituted the FIR on 11.03.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that it is a clear-cut case of false implication as the applicant is the neighbour of victim and he had altercation with the informant. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Even the informant has been examined as PW-1 and was cross- examined by the public prosecutor the same day. In all, twelve witnesses have been mentioned in the charge-sheet and only five of them have been examined. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that the trial is moving at a snails' pace and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim has been examined as PW-2 and her statement is intact. She has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR. 11. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the doctor, who was examined as PW-4, has also reiterated the allegations of the FIR as was narrated to her by the victim. The defence did not choose to properly cross-examine the witness/victim. Only formal witness/Investigating Officer remained to be examined. The trial is likely to be concluded in near future. The victim was four years old baby, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim and her statement being recorded in court as PW-2 who has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 14. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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 :- 15.5.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad