Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42057 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19288 of 2024 Applicant :- Dabloo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kuldeep Kumar Dube Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Durga Prasad, holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have taken the victim on cycle near railway station and had committed rape with her and thereupon left the victim at her aunt's (mausi) house who informed the informant and retrieved the victim from there. 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 two days after the victim was retrieved. It is next stated that the medical report does not corroborate the prosecution story, although slight redness has been observed by the doctor. The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that the railway station is crowded place and the victim and the applicant were seen going in the CCTV footage whereby the applicant was holding hands of the victim. It is next stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2024. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the trial is going on and the examination-in-chief of the victim has been recorded. The victim has sustained injuries on her vital part as slight redness was observed over the introitus by the doctor conducting her medical examination. As per ossification test report, the victim is aged about 16 years, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the victim was minor at the timie of offence coupled by the fact that the injury was observed on the vital part of the victim and considering the fact that the applicant is the relative of the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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 :- 21.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad