Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142482 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21534 of 2025 Applicant :- Dipak Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey,Bed Prakash Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kunwar Pankaj Singh,Vikas Srivastava Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. On the matter being taken up, Mr. Kunwar Pankaj Singh and Mr. Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party No. 4 are not present. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder representing the State. By means of this bail application, applicant-Dipak Kumar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 69 of 2025, under Sections 75(1)(i), 76, 331(6) of B.N.S. and Section 9m/10 POCSO Act, police station Jamaniya, district Ghazipur, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There are contradictions in the statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. of the victim. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that it is a case of aggravated sexual assault on a minor child who is below 12 years of age. Victim, in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., has narrated the entire incident, which is corroborated from the prosecution version as mentioned in the F.I.R., hence bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is not in dispute that victim is minor child aged about 9 years, who in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., has made specific allegation of sexual abuse against the applicant giving vivid description of the incident. Statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. are extracted herein below:- "बययान पपीडड़ितया अन्तररत धयारया 180 बपीएनएसएस..........ममेरपी उम्र लरभर 09 वरर हहै ममेरमे रयागांव कया दपीपक डबन्द पपुत्र अमरनयाथ डबन्द पतया रयामपपुर उरर सलमेमपपुर थयानया जमयाडनययागां जनपद रयाजपीपपुर कया डनवयासपी हहै। कल डदनयानाँक 16.02.25 रयात करपीब 10.00 बजमे मम घर मम अकमे लपी ससो रहपी थपी ममेरपी मम्मपी व दपीदपी प्रययाररयाज स्नयान करनमे रयपी थपी और ममेरया भयाई जमयाडनययागां स्टमेशन रयात 10.00 बजमे मम्मपी व दपीदपी कसो लमेनमे चलया रयया थया उसपी समय दपीपक डबन्द ममेरमे घर मम घपुसकर ममेरमे बरल मम ससो रयया और ममेरया हयाथ पकड़िकर सहलयानमे लरया और पमेट पर भपी हयाथ रमे रनमे लरया और ममेरया हयाथ पकड़िकर अपनमे पमट मम डयालनमे लरया तभपी ममेरपी ननींद खपुलपी और मम डचलयानमे लरपी डरर वह भयार रयया तथया ममेरपी लहैरपीस भपी खसोल डदयमे थया। यहपी ममेरया बययान हहै।" "बययान पपीडड़ितया अन्तररत धयारया 183 बपीएनएसएस........... डदनयागांक 16.02.25 कसो रयात मम 10.00 बजमे ममेरया भयाई , मम्मपी और दपीदपी कसो स्टमेशन समे लयानमे रयया थया। मम्मपी दपीदपी प्रययाररयाज रई थपी। मम घर मम अकमे लमे ससो रहपी थपी। घर कया दरवयाजया डचपकया थया। तभपी मपुझमे लरया डक कसोई ममेरया हयाथ पहैर और पमेट सहलया रहया हहै। डरर ममेरया हयाथ लमेकर अपनमे पमट मम डयालया। तब तक ममेरपी ननींद खपुल रई तसो मम नमे दपीपक डबन्द पपुत्र अमरनयाथ डबन्द कसो दमेखया। वसो ममेरपी ददसरपी तरर आकमे लमेट रयया। मम शसोर मचयाई तसो चलया रयया। ममेरमे दसोबयारया ससोतमे हपी डरर आ रयया तब मम ददौड़िकर रलपी कमे पयास जयाकर चयाचया कसो आवयाज दपी तब दपीपक भयार रयया। चयाचया चयाचपी बरल मम रहतमे हहै, वसो लसोर आयमे तब मम उनकसो बतयाई। डरर भईयया कमे आनमे पर भईयया कसो बतयाई। उसपी डदन हम थयानमे पर रई। दपीपक कया घर हमयारमे घर कमे पयास हपी हहै। और कपु छ नहपी कहनया हहै।" So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant about minor contradictions in the statements of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. are concerned, it is well settled that the minor contradictions and trivial discrepancies do not by themselves render the evidence of minor victim unbelievabl unless the said contradictions goes into the root of the matter, which are lacking in the present case. In view of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, presumption shall also be drawn against the applicant unless the contrary is proved by the applicant. There is nothing on record to presume the false implication of the applicant. Hence as on date, I do not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of the victim and release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observations contained in the instant order are confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Copy of this order be sent to the informant forthwith for information. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad