Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41981 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16781 of 2024 Applicant :- Raghuvar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra,Muhammad Azam,Saurabh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rishabh Srivastava Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Hamid, Advocate holding brief of Sri Muhammad Azam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Risabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 33 of 2024, under Sections 376AB, 323 of I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(5), 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act and Sections 5M/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Munderva, District - Basti, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the victim on 16.02.2024 at about 04:00 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about two days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is minor aged about 11 years as per ossification test report but there is no injury sustained on her vital parts of the body. It is also stated that the applicant is the relative of the victim, as such, has been falsely implicated in the case. 6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim was minor and her age was 11 years only. The doctor conducting the medical examination of the victim had observed scratches over her neck, as such, the prosecution story stands established. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the tender age of the victim and the scratch marks observed by the doctor conducting her medical examination, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application 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 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. 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:- 21.3.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad