Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29736 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25818 of 2024 Applicant :- Jay Prakash Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 67 of 2024, under Sections 452, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the daughter of the informant, who was of unsound mind, on 23.04.2024 at about 1 a.m when the informant had gone out. The victim was found naked by the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by seven hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is next stated that there is no proper corroboration of the incident as per medical report also. It is a clear cut case of false implication over a dispute regarding tree. The allegations are per se false. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained as the said matter relates to Electricity Act in which proceedings have been closed against the applicant. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail on the ground that the victim was of unsound mind and she has stated in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she was five years old but she has categorically stated that she was raped by the applicant. The victim has even pointed towards her vital parts. Even the medical report corroborates the prosecution story as the doctor has opined that the hymen was torned freshly. The medical examination was undertaken on 24.02.2024 at about 3 p.m. itself i.e. the next day of the FIR, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the mental condition of the victim and also the fact that she has sustained injuries on her vital parts, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 9. 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. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad