HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21074 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 08.06.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, under Section 137(2) of BNS and Sections 5(m)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Shahpur, District - Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed unnatural offence with the informant's minor son, aged about nine years, in the sugarcane field on 09.02.2025 at about 12 noon. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about six hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no injury sustained by the victim, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2025 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ambreen Masroor, Awaish Khan, G.A., Sadrul Islam Jafri Aarif .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow And Others .....Opposite Party(s) and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is a nine years old only and as per his injury report, there was abrasion at 11 O' Clock on voluntary opening of anus and there was also a redning present in anal canal, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the FIR being instituted within a reasonable period of time, the age of the victim coupled by the fact that the injuries sustained by the victim are on his vital parts, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. September 25, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 21074 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad