Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72100 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15011 of 2025 Applicant :- Balram Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Mishra,Indradeep Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Abrar Khan, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2024, under Sections 64, 127, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Charwa, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim by forcing her into a secluded house of his grand father on 27.12.2024 at about 9:30 a.m. 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. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that two neighbours of the place of occurrence were examined by the Investigating Officer namely Vishwanath and Babu Lal, who have categorically stated that the applicant and the victim had not gone to the place of occurrence on the fateful date and time of incident, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. It is further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per her school certificate of class-Xth, her date of birth is stated to be 01.01.2010, as such she was less than 15 years old at the time of incident but the said document cannot be taken into consideration being hit by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the victim has sustained injury on her vital part as observed by the doctor as her hymen was found injured. The victim is minor less than 15 years and her consent, if any, pales into insignificance. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the victim coupled by the fact that the victim was minor at the time of incident, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 8. 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. 9. 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 :- 6.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad