Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129025 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11606 of 2025 Applicant :- Vimal Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawna Verma,Siya Ram Verma 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. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session Case No.821 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.40 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376AB IPC and 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Derapur, District Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.8.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26331 of 2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken much reliance on the statement of victim recorded in court as PW-2, whereby she has stated that she had given the statement as narrated by her mother. Learned counsel has also placed much reliance on the statement of doctor, PW-4 whereby he has stated that injuries were fresh and blood was oozing out. The blood gets clotted about 3-7 minutes after injury. Learned counsel has stated that the medical examination of the victim has been taken up one day after the incident, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The injuries may by self-inflicted or may be caused by some another reason. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case is fixed for defence evidence. This Court while rejecting the first bail application had directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously but the trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. A period of about eleven months has passed since the said order. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 35 of POCSO Act which stipulates the time period of one year for completing the trial after taking cognizance of the offence, while the applicant is incarcerated in jail for about 16 months. As such, he is entitled for bail. 9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2024 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. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the said contradictions pointed out by counsel for the applicant cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of bail that too when trial is fixed for defence evidence, 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. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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. 14. 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 :- 1.8.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad