Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26083 Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20073 of 2024 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This is third bail application of the applicant. The first and second bail applications of the applicant were dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide orders dated 16.10.2023 and 25.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21554 of 2023 (Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 03 others) and 3670 of 2024 (Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 03 others). 4. Vide order dated 13.11.2024 notice was issued to the first informant. As per the office report dated 21.02.2025 a report regarding service of notice has been received. The report dated 28.01.2025 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur is on record which states that notice has been served on the first informant personally. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the first informant. 5. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Vinay Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 184 of 2022, under Sections 34, 376DB, 506 I.P.C. & 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Jamaniya, District Ghazipur. 6. The first information report of the matter was lodged on 20.05.2022 by Smt. Jallu Begum, under Section 354 I.P.C. against the applicant, Rahul, Saif and Govinda with the allegation that the accused persons had lured and enticed away her daughter and had enraged her modesty after which somehow her daughter saved herself and came back home and told her about the incident. The accused persons often tease her and tried to take benefit of darkness and commit illegal act. A report be lodged and action be taken. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report has been lodged under Section 354 I.P.C. It is submitted that it was for the first time when the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded there were allegations of rape upon her. It is submitted that in the present matter the trial has started in which the first informant Jallu Begum has been examined as P.W.-1 whereas the victim has been examined as P.W.-2. It is submitted that there are no chances of the applicant thus now tampering with the evidence. It is further submitted while placing Annexure-8 to the affidavit that co- accused Govind @ Govinda has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50075 of 2022 (Govind @ Govinda Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 13 and is in jail since 21.06.2022. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the victim is a minor girl and her radiological age was opined as 16 years. It is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated of the applicant committing rape upon her. It is further submitted that the first informant Jallu Begum while being examined before the trial court has supported the prosecution case and further the victim while being examined as P.W.-2 before the trial court has also supported the prosecution case and has specifically stated of the applicant committing rape upon her. It is submitted that case of the applicant and co-accused persons are distinguishable. It is submitted that bail of the applicant be thus dismissed. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first information report was lodged by the mother of the victim under Section 354 I.P.C. During investigation after the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she has levelled specific allegations of rape against the applicant Section 376 I.P.C. was added. The applicant is stated to have committed rape upon her. The trial in the matter is going on in which the first informant has been examined as P.W.-1 who has supported the prosecution case. The victim has been examined as P.W.-2 who has also supported the prosecution case and has levelled specific allegations against the applicant. The case of co-accused who has been granted bail is distinguishable. In so far as the case of the applicant is concerned, since the applicant is the main person who has been assigned the specific role of committing rape upon the victim who is a minor girl opined to be about 16 years old, no ground for bail exits. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad