Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113332 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17950 of 2025 Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Johri Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A-I for the State are present. 3. Vakalatnama of Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the first informant is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace out the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet regarding the same. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Arjun, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.88 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 351(2), 127(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. 5. Learned counsel for the State states that he has received instructions in the matter in compliance of order dated 26.5.2025. 6. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.2.2025 Mewaram against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter aged about 14 years has been lured and enticed away by the applicant on 22.2.2025. When he asked the father of the applicant about the whereabouts of his daughter, he did not give satisfactory reply. A report be lodged and action be taken. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that in so far as the time of the alleged incident of rape is concerned, the same is not consistent and as such the prosecution story appears to be doubtful. It is further argued that the medical examination report of the victim does not show any injury on her body or on her private part, as such there is no corroboration of the allegation of rape through medical evidence. It is further argued that reading of the statements of the victim would go to show that there had been some discussion of marriage between the applicant and the victim but the same did not materialize and thus present FIR has been lodged. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 19 of the affidavit and is in jail since 25.3.2025. 8. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years. There is allegation of rape against the applicant. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that in so far as the factum of rape is concerned, the same has been stated by the victim consistently in her both statements recorded during investigation. The applicant is named in the FIR. Merely giving different time of the said allegation would not render entire prosecution case doubtful. The victim is a minor girl aged about 14 years. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. (Samit Gopal, J.) Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad