Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12101 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40697 of 2023 Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amrit Mishra,G.A.,Gunjan Sharma,Shashank Shekhar,Vijay Singh Sengar Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Utkarsh Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amrit Mishra, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Gunjan Sharma, learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee and Sri P.K. Giri, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as perused the material available on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.0136 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have committed rape with the minor daughter of the informant, aged about 12 years, in the night of 07.05.2023 at about 9:30 p.m. when she had gone behind the tent to pee. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 6. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. There are ample contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to the FIR. 8. The applicant had installed his tent in the marriage ceremony at the house of one Ravikant and the informant herein is a relative and a feud over the payment of the said tent led to the false implication of the applicant. 9. The injuries have been manufactured. 10. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the closure report has been filed in it. He is in jail since 14.05.2023 and is ready to cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT/HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE: 11. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that there are bite marks on right side of the cheek of the victim and there is a scratch marks on her left cheek. The injury report indicates that hymen was found torn at multiple sides and inflammation was present. In the opinion of the doctor, there were signs suggestive of recent use of force/forceful penetration of vagina/sexual violence, which cannot be ruled out. 12. The doctor has also reiterated the same opinion expressed in the said injury report in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 13. The medical examination has been taken up on the date of FIR i.e. on 11.05.2023 and despite there being a delay of four days, the injuries were very much visible. CONCLUSION: 14. This Court had called for ossification test of the victim and the same is already on record, which suggest that the age of the victim was 16 years at the time of her medical examination. The said ossification test has been conducted about one year after the incident. 15. After hearing the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim coupled with the facts that the victim has sustained injuries on her vital part as well as on her cheeks and the opinion of the doctor, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 16. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 17. 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 Apex 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. 18. 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. 19. The original ossification test report received shall be returned to the office of the C.M.O. concerned after retaining the photostat copies of the same on record. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad