Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12139 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1596 of 2023 Applicant :- Kashiram Dohare Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri P.K. Giri, learned A.A.G, assisted by Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2020, under Sections 457, 376AB I.P.C and Section 5M/6 of the POCSO Act., Police Station Bhognipurl, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of trial. 3. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the nine years old dumb daughter of the informant on 07.06.2020 at about 1 a.m. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is further stated that the FIR was instituted peremptorily the same morning at 2:45 a.m. There is no medical corroboration of the instant case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2020, as such, the Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the age of the victim was about nine years and she was unable to speak and has been ravished by the lust of the applicant who is major. 6. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that there is criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant as Case Crime No.927 of 2018 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police station- Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat and Case Crime No.1020 of 2018 under section 60 A of the Excise Act, Police station- Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat which has not been explained. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim and the criminal antecedents of the applicant which has not been explained, 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 :- 23.1.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad