Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89183 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16564 of 2025 Applicant :- Durgesh Alias Rishu Saini Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned A.G.A, notice to the informant has been served on 10.05.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2024, under Sections 65(2) of BNS and Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have sodomized the victim aged about 4 years on 07.10.2024 at about 12:30 p.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 five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant belongs to the same lineage to that of the informant, as such the parties are at loggersheads with each other and to this effect, FIRs have been registered by the family members of the applicant against the informant. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant himself is a youth aged about 18 years, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that there is a tear at 7 o'clock position 1 cm x 0.3 cm x muscles deep in anal region at mococutanious junction reddish in colour, as such the prosecution stands fortified from the said medical report. The FIR itself is prompt. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that the FIR was instituted within five hours of the incident and there being medical corroboration of the incident, 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 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 :- 26.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad