Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129064 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26731 of 2023 Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Raj Kiran Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 23.06.2023, but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Rajiv Chaudhary, holding brief of Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376, 324, 506 IPC and Section 3, 4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the victim and had subsequently taken her in auto to a factory thereby kept her whole night on 21.12.2019 and committed rape with her. 5. Subsequently, the next morning applicant is stated to have told the victim that his friend shall also join her whereby she refused to do so and is stated to have established corporeal relationship with the applicant only and not with his friends and came back. On 24.12.2019, the applicant is stated to have asked the father of the victim to send her with him but he refused. The applicant is even stated to have thrown brick at the victim which hit the wife of the applicant only. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that the victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the circumstances as narrated by her in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The victim by physical appearance seems to be major, although she herself has stated her age to be 17 years and as per ossification test report, her age has come up to be 19-20 years. 8. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2020 and wife of the applicant has also been made an accused in the said matter and she absconded, as such trial did not move ahead, rather it stands still. The applicant was granted interim bail vide order dated 11.08.2023 on the ground of his period of incarceration and status of trial. 9. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 10. This Court had called for status of trial on 10.07.2025 and the said report received from the trial court dated 30.07.2025 indicates that no witness has been examined to date, as such there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. 11. Under these circumstances, earlier order of this Court dated 11.08.2023 is made absolute. The present bail application is, accordingly, allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Saleem, who is involved in aforementioned case crime, be released on regular bail on the same personal bond and sureties, if already furnished, subject to the conditions enumerated in the earlier order of this Court dated 11.08.2023. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad