Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103987 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22123 of 2025 Applicant :- Karu Alias Pooranmal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niklank Kumar Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant / opposite party No. 4. By means of this application, applicant-Karu alias Pooranmal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025, under Section 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, police station- Sidhpura, district Kasganj, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant who is father of the victim got a first information report lodged on 15.02.2025 for the alleged offence under Section 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act against the applicant making allegations inter alia that applicant has been committing carnal intercourse on his son aged about 14 years for last four years by luring him with money, toffees, biscuits and foods and threatened to kill him, if he tell anyone in his house. It is also stated that his son told him that by luring to get him passed in High School and transfer land in his name applicant again committed carnal intercourse on 13.02.2025 in the mustered field. The complainant further stated that his nephew Aditya and his neighbour Rishabh have made video of the said incident. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that except the oral allegations, there is no corroborative material to substantiate the allegations levelled against the applicant. It is further pointed out that no injury was found in the medical examination report of the alleged victim. In fact complainant's nephew Aditya had borrowed Rs. 70,000/- from the applicant and on demanding his money by the applicant, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant who is languishing in jail since 15.05.2025, may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant reiterating the F.I.R. version by contending that the applicant is aged about 48 years, who has been committing carnal intercourse on the minor victim (aged about 14 years) by luring and extending threat. It is next pointed out that Investigating Officer has collected video of the said incident and same has also made the part of case diary in C.D. No. 6. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is further pointed out that apart from this case applicant has criminal history of two cases. In one case he has been acquitted and in another case registered under Section 2/3 of U.P.Gangster Act at police station Jaithra, District Etah, applicant is on bail application. 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 the allegation of committing carnal intercourse on victim levelled against the applicant is prima facie corroborated from evidence of video collected by the investigating officer. The offence is punishable for ten years, which is heinous offence and would cast stigma on the future of the victim. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Kashifa Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad