Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115090 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38257 of 2023 Applicant :- Nasharuddin Alias Nashru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Hari Narayan Singh, holding brief of Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 254 of 2022, under Sections 376-AB, 504 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Gulariha, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is next stated that the applicant has been incarcerated for more than three years as he is languishing in jail since 01.7.2022 and his Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. There is no injury sustained by the victim, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and he is cooperating in trial. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that as per ossification test report, age of the victim has come up to be 10 years only and her statement has already been recorded in court and three witnesses of fact have been examined and they have deposed against the applicant, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that witnesses of fact have already been examined and the trial is moving on and also taking into account the age of the victim being ten year only, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and 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 :- 16.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad