Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124406 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20274 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit @ Shiv Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Yadav,Prabhat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.N.Singh,G.A.,Manish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Harendra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party no. 2, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. The Vakalatnama of Sri Manish Kumar Singh is not on record despite his name being printed in the cause list. Office to trace the same and place it on record and make a note in the order sheet about it. 4. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant- Ankit @ Shiv Singh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Special Sessions Trial Case No. 200 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 10 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87, 65(1) of B.N.S and Section 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 03.01.2025 by Chhote Lal against the applicant alleging therein that on 31.12.2024, his daughter who is a minor aged about 14 years was alone in the house wherein at about 3:00 P.M, when he came back from the field he did not find her. On search he did not got to know about her whereabouts. Lateron, a phone came to him through which he receives information that Ankit, the present applicant has lured her and enticed her away. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the statement of the victim goes to show that she is a consenting party. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted, paragraph 15 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the statement of the victim although goes to show that the case is of consent but the applicant has been falsely implicated as he had given money to the informant and when he was asking him for return he has been implicated falsely, paragraph-19 and 20 of the affidavit have been placed before the Court. 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 19.01.2025. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that victim is a minor aged about 14 years as her date of birth as recorded in the school record is 16.07.2010. It is submitted that thus the present case in which the applicant is named and the victim also states of the applicant taking her away and establishing physical relationship goes to show allegation against him. It is submitted that although the pleading in the bail application is of false implication but the same is not borne out from the records. It is further submitted that looking to the inconsistency and the argument and pleading and the merit in the bail application of the applicant be rejected. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R., in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation there is an allegation of sexual assault on the victim by the applicant. The victim is aged about 14 years, as per the school record, she is a minor and consent of a minor is of no worth. Case as per the statement of the victim is being argued to be of consent but as per pleadings is been shown to be of false implication. No ground for bail is made out. 9. 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 :- 28.7.2025 PS Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad