Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103480 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58715 of 2022 Applicant :- Hari Shanker Dixit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aalok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Seema Pandey Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 28.10.2022 but none is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call. 2. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Seema Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Services Authority and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 813 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)(F), 506 I.P.C. and Section 5(1), 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. 5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that witness Arhem has been introduced by the informant in his statement and the Investigating Officer did not care to record the statement of the said eye witness Arhem, as such the investigation stands tainted. It is a clear cut case of false implication. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the shop of the applicant was exactly opposite to the house of the informant and it is a crowded place and many persons used to visit the shop in the area. Several photographs have been appended to the bail application which indicates that it was not possible for the applicant to commit the said offence. The applicant himself is aged about 69 years and the informant used to file FIRs as she has admitted in her statement that she has instituted an FIR against the S.H.O. of the police station also, as such it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.09.2021. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court Legal Service Authority have vehemently opposed the bail. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is no new ground to proceed as the medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution story, 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 :- 3.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad