HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28100 of 2024 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Sri Gajendra Singh and Sri Ratnesh Srivastava, learned counsels for the first informant are not present even when the matter is taken in the revised list. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Munesh, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 750 of 2023, under Section 376-AB, 506, 342 I.P.C. read with Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr. 4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 05.11.2023 by Krishna Pal Sharma against the applicant alleging therein that his younger brother Chandra Pal Sharma died on 21.09.2023 and his family members live in the village. His niece aged about 10 years also lives there. Yesterday at about 3 pm she was sitting outside the house where Munesh a person aged about 50 years forcibly took the girl by pulling her in his house and committed rape upon her. She was seen taken inside the house by the neighbours but could not understand the reason and thus did not oppose it. After reaching the house the girl started shouting on which Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Alam, Kashif Zaidi, Mohd Mahfooz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Gajendra Singh, Ratnesh Srivastava Munesh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) he gagged her mouth and did not let her shout. He took her inside and committed rape upon her. He threatened her if she tells it to anyone he would murder her brother. She in a state of pain and bleeding came crying to her aunt Rekha Sharma who asked her and then she told her about the incident. A report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first information report subsequently states of the applicant committing rape upon the victim but the medical examination of the victim does not show any injury on her body and even on her private parts. It is submitted that the victim is a mentally challenged girl and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and even her statement before the trial court has not been recorded through a Special Educator which was mandatory to be done. It is submitted that although the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court but the trial court has not even recorded its satisfaction that a girl aged about 11 years was competent and sensible enough to give the statement before it. It is submitted that the same is thus illegal and against the statute. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 19 and is in jail since 05.11.2023. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. It is submitted that the victim during her medical examination has stated that the applicant tried to insert his finger in her private parts. It is submitted that in so far as the use of Special Educator before the trial court is concerned, the same is to be agitated in the trial and decided at the appropriate stage. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl who has levelled allegations of rape against the applicant. 7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the victim is a minor girl aged about 10 years. The applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. There is no reason coming forward for false implication. The trial is going in the BAIL No. 28100 of 2024 2 matter, release of the applicant at this stage would not be in the fitness of things. No ground for bail is made out. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 12, 2025 AS Rathore BAIL No. 28100 of 2024 3 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad