Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108771 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17945 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Alias Chuppa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel for complainant/opposite party no. 2. By means of this bail application, applicant Jitendra Alias Chuppa, who is involved in Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 75, 76, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, police station Pisava, district Aligarh seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged by mother of the victim aged about nine years against her husband Jitendra, who is father of the victim, for the alleged offence under Sections 75, 76, 351(3) BNS, 2023 and Sections 9, 10 of POCSO Act at Police Station Pisava, District Aligarh. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of his dispute with his wife, making false allegation against him. Referring the statement under Section 183 BNSS of the victim, it is submitted that the victim did not make allegation against the applicant. It is also submitted that now dispute of complainant has been settled with the applicant, therefore, she herself became deponent in the present bail application. Much emphasis has been given by contending that in fact applicant scolded her daughter, therefore, being annoyed wife of the applicant lodged a false report. Lastly, it is submitted that apart from the present case, the applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 148 of 2021, in which he has been acquitted by the trial Court and there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, who is languishing in jail since 07.04.2025. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS has fully supported the prosecution case making specific allegation of committing misdeed with her by her father (applicant). Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is a rare case where mother of victim made allegation of sexual abuse on her minor daughter against her husband (father of victim). As per allegation made in F.I.R., the applicant after disrobing his daughter manipulated her private parts. I also find that the said allegation and the manner in which incident occurred has also been narrated by the victim in her statement under Section 180 BNSS giving vivid description of the same but later on, she in her statement under Section 183 BNSS given contradictory statement. So far as criminal history of one case of the applicant is concerned, I find that in the said case, he has been acquitted by the judgment and order dated 30.09.2023 from the charges under Section 323, 376, 307 and 324 I.P.C. on the ground that victim and other prosecution witnesses of that case became hostile. In view of the above at this stage, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the allegations levelled against the applicant, which is a matter of trial and can be adjudicated after leading evidence in accordance with law. Considering the nature of allegations, previous history of the applicant as well as law of presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial of the applicant in light of Section 35 of POCSO Act without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad