Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144851 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43362 of 2023 Applicant :- Pramod Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Srivastava,Rakesh Chaturvedi,Reena Pal,Sarvesh Chaturvedi,Surabhi Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mamta Singh Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rajiv Malviya, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sarvesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Varun Pratap 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.16 of 2022, under Sections 376AB I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Surajpur, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 09.01.2022 at about 05:00 PM by taking her behind the bushes. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about fifteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no external injury sustained by the victim, however, as per the prosecution, she is stated to have been taken behind the bushes, as such, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.01.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that age of the victim, as per ossification test, was about 13-14 years, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per status report dated 08.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, three witness have been examined and the case has been adjourned on account of application moved by the counsel for the applicant several times. Even application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant before the trial court which is still pending. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that age of the victim is about 13-14 years as per her ossification test and also the case being adjourned by counsel for the applicant during trial, 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 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 :- 22.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad