Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109684 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16236 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdul Salam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jayant Dwivedi,Pulkit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pulkit Agrawal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.824 of 2023, under Sections 354-A, 376 AB I.P.C. and 6/12 POCSO Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.3.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18969 of 2024, which reads as follows:- "1. List has been revised. 2. Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 10.5.2024. 3. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Special Case No.1149 of 2023 (State vs. Abdul Salam), arising out of Case Crime No.824 of 2023, under Sections 354-A, 376 AB IPC and 6/12 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have shown some indecent video to the victim aged about 9 years and had committed aggravated sexual assault with her on 26.11.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed as there is no mentioning of time of offence in it. There is no recovery of any indecent video from the applicant. There is no injury sustained by the victim. The allegations are per se false. There are several contradictions in the statement of the victim. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim has not supported the prosecution story as she has been examined as PW-1 during trial and has been declared hostile and cross-examined on 4.3.2025. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2023. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that examination-in-chief of the victim was completed on 24.7.2024 and subsequent to it recall application was moved and the court was pleased to recall the witness vide its order dated 2.9.2024 and the witness was re-examined on 4.3.2025, whereby she has not supported the prosecution story during re-examination. 9. Learned A.G.A. has further argued that the said subsequent statement of the victim has been taken under duress as she had reiterated the allegations made in the FIR in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination done on 24.7.2024. The difference between the two statements of the victim in court is about eight months, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., nature of allegations, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of case as also taking into consideration the statement of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, PW-2 was examined during trial subsequent to passing of the rejection order dated 21.3.2025 and PW-2 has not supported the prosecution story and has been cross-examined by the public prosecution after declaring him hostile. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case. 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 27.11.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the circumstances as mentioned in paragraphs nos.8 and 9 of the earlier order dated 21.3.2025, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible 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. 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 :- 10.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad