Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63931 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12492 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shantanu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Shantanu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Sessions Trial No. 2256 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2024, under Section 70(2) of BNS and Sections 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kotwali Dehat, District - Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in statement of co-accused person which has no evidentiary value, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim is seven years old. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the victim has categorically stated in her statement recorded during trial that the applicant was standing there only. The role of assault has been assigned to co-accused Junaid and gagging her mouth to Uvaish, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was tender age i.e. about three years old and if we assume her age to be 7 years, she was an extremely minor girl. She has sustained injuries on her vital organs. The FIR is too prompt as it has been instituted within four hours of the incident, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the victim has nominated the applicant in her statement recorded in court as PW-1 coupled by the fact that she has sustained injuries on her vital organs and the presence of the applicant also established, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 10. 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:- 25.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad