HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23056 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra 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-Chanardhan Patel, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.87 of 2025, u/s 65(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and u/s 5(m)/6 POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Madhuban, District Mau. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 17.3.2025 by Sanjay Kumar against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter aged about 10 years had gone to study in class 2nd. The applicant is priest in a temple. He allured his daughter for prasad and money and called her on 11.3.2025 at about 1 p.m. during lunch hours, then took her to the mustard field and committed rape upon her. His daughter told him about it and also told that previously 2-3 times earlier he has done the same act on her. 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. While placing para no.7 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is argued that the story as narrated in the FIR is false and concocted story as the applicant and the informant are the neighbours and due to enmity of previous elections of Gram Pradhani, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. While placing para no.18 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is argued that the applicant is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Chanardhan Patel .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) aged about 62 years. It is argued that the victim was medically examined and doctor did not find any recent injury of sexual assault on her private parts. While placing para no.30 of the affidavit in support of bail application, it is argued that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further argued that FIR has been lodged after unexplained delay of six days, para 14 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.3.2025. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR, in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation. There are allegations of committing rape by the applicant upon the victim. The victim has specifically named the applicant and has stated of the applicant committing rape upon her and even stated of committing rape upon her 2-3 times earlier. It is further submitted that in so far as the medical examination of the victim is concerned, the same goes to show that her hymen was torn and thus the factum of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. The victim is aged about 10 years and a child 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 victim is a child aged about 10 years. The applicant is named in the FIR, in the statement of the victim recorded during investigation. There is allegation of sexual assault by the applicant upon the victim for several times. The reason for false implication as is being argued by placing para 7 of the affidavit does not at all transpire confidence and is too vague to be believed. 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.) September 4, 2025 Gaurav Kuls BAIL No. 23056 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad