Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41891 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17009 of 2024 Applicant :- Yashpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ambuj Kumar Shukla,Pankaj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neha Rani,Satyvendra Singh Yadav Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present. 2. Heard Sri R.B. Pal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.148 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376AB, 323, 506 IPC and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have raped the victim, aged about five years, on 16.10.2024 at about 7:00 p.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There is no injury sustained by the victim on her vital part. The allegations are per se false. Learned counsel has further stated that it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The applicant is in jail since 17.10.2023 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. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that bleeding was observed by the doctor on the vital part of the victim and she being of tender age, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned A.G.A. has further stated that the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained as he has not annexed any orders whatsoever. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim being five years only coupled with the fact that bleeding was observed by the doctor on her vital part and also taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly 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. 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 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad