Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89814 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18231 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Aamir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. As informed by learned A.G.A., notice has been served to the informant on 16.5.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.287 of 2024, U/S 65(2), 351(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 5. The applicant, who seems to be driver of the van taking the students to school is stated to have touched the private part of the victim inappropriately, as such, had committed the offence of rape with the victim on 13.8.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. 7. The FIR is delayed as it was instituted on 14.8.2024 and there is no time of offence mentioned therein. 8. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of the doctors, who had examined the victim. First was the person, who had taken up the medical examination of the victim at the Primary Health Centre, whereby she has stated that she observed redness on her private part, but she could not opine whether the said redness has been caused due to the sexual assault with her. 9. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the statement of another doctor (gynecologist), to whom the victim was taken for treatment and the said doctor Deepanshi Garg has stated that she was not sure whether the said redness has been caused by penetration or by any physical assault. 10. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the CCTV footage of the school, whereby the applicant is seen going and coming out of the gate on several dates but he is not seen with the victim anywhere. 11. Learned counsel has stated that in the said CCTV footage, there is nothing on record to suggest that the victim or any other child had come out of the classroom during school hours. The applicant himself was on leave from 9.8.2024 to 13.8.2024, as such, he had no occasion to be present and commit the said offence. The said fact stands mentioned in paragraph 17 of the affidavit filed with the bail application. The applicant tried his best to fetch a copy of attendance register from the school authorities but the same was refused to him on the ground that it shall be provided on being summoned by the Court concerned only. 12. There are independent witnesses namely, Principal, teacher and staff lady, who have also not supported the prosecution story. 13. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2024, having no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY: 14. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that that the victim is of tender age, being less than 4 years old and she has sustained injury on her private part, as redness was observed by the doctor conducting her medical examination and the instant case falls within the category of Section 65(2) of B.N.S., as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the presence of redness on private part of the victim, who is of tender age being less than 4 years old and even the statement of the doctors referred by learned counsel for the applicant does not indicate that the said injuries were not observed on the body of the victim, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 16. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 17. 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 :- 27.5.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad