Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82844 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3721 of 2025 Applicant :- Genrail Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey 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 Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.250 of 2024, under Sections 332, 70(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Sarsawa, District- Saharanpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up subsequently on the basis of CCTV footage garnered from the camera installed in the neighborhood of the victim. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant simply has been seen with the named accused person in the lane, as such, case of the applicant is at different footing to the named accused person Surendra Kumar. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.8.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the CCTV footage, from which named accused person was also identified, was garnered from the camera which is installed in the house of immediate neighbour of the victim. The victim was of unsound mind. 8. Learned A.G.A. has further argued that although she is major, but she cannot be inferred to be a consenting party. The victim has sustained injuries on her private parts, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that there are injuries on the fourchette, introitus and hymen perinseum of the victim coupled by the fact that FIR is prompt and the applicant was seen with the named accused person Surendra Kumar in the CCTV footage near the house of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. 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 :- 17.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad