Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103647 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22137 of 2025 Applicant :- Amarjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rupendra Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant-Amarjeet, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.24 of 2025, u/s 64, 351(2), 77 B.N.S., P.S. Munda Panday, District Moradabad. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 25.1.2025 by the victim on the basis of an application dated 24.10.2024 moved under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. against the applicant alleging therein that she was working in the house wherein the applicant finding her, threatened her with a country-made pistol and took her in a room and committed rape upon her. He threatened her of dire consequences. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the medical examination of the victim does not support the prosecution case as there is no opinion of rape being committed on her. While placing para 12 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is submitted that the applicant gave Rs.1 lakh in the marriage of the victim to her father and after about 8 months, he was demanding the same, thus the present FIR has been lodged as the money has not been returned. The present FIR has been lodged after delay of about 4 months and twenty days. The delay is unexplained. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 21 of the affidavit and is in jail since 10.2.2025. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in so far as delay is concerned, an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was moved by the victim before the court concerned after about 18 days of the incident and thus there is no delay in the FIR. There is no reason given for false implication of the applicant. The FIR has been lodged on correct and true facts, as such bail application of the applicant be rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The reason for false implication as stated in para 12 of the affidavit does not inspire confidence. There is no credible reason given for false implication. 8. 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 :- 3.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad