Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130701 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25602 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Shakir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh,Kartik Verma Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Mohd. Naushad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on records. 3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant - Mohd. Shakir, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 115(2) and 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3/4(2) Protection of Children From Sexual Offence, 2012, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad. 4. The first information report of the matter was lodged on 11.02.2025 by Nadeem against the applicant alleging therein that his daughter aged about 14 years had gone to the school on 10.02.2025 at about 9:00 a.m. to study in which she was in class 6th. Even after closing of the school at about 2:00 p.m., she did not came back to the house on 10.02.2025 by evening and then he searched for her and came to know that Mohd. Shakir after closing of the school on 10.02.2025 at about 2 :00 p.m. met her on the way and allured her and enticed her away, report be lodged and action be taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of about 25 hours, since the incident has occurred on 10.02.2025 at 2:00 p.m. but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.02.2025 at about 3:22 p.m., paragraph 7 of the affidavit has been placed before the court. It is further submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant disclosing his complicity, paragraph 17 of the affidavit has been placed before the court. Further while placing the statements of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S.and 183 B.N.S.S. along with paragraph 19 of the affidavit, it is submitted that there are serious contradictions in both the statements and the first information report. Further, while placing paragraph 24 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the story regarding a cold drink being purchased and given to the victim to drink after which, she states to have become unconscious is false and incorrect and as such the shop keeper from whom the said drink was allegedly purchased has clearly stated that his shop was closed on the time in question, paragraph no. 24 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. Further while placing paragraph 25 of the affidavit, it is submitted that owner of the hotel where the incident is alleged to have taken place has not stated in his statement that the prosecutrix was found to be unconscious and as such the claim that she was unconscious is false. Further while placing paragraph 26 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the statement given by the victim appears to be under pressure and tutelage of her family members. It is further submitted that the charge sheet in the matter has been submitted on 22.03.2025, on which cognizance has been taken by the court concerned on 15.04.2025, paragraph 13 of the affidavit and annexure-7 being the charge sheet has been placed before the court. Further while placing paragraph 30 of the affidavit, the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 16.02.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. It is further submitted further that as per the school records, the date of birth of the victim is on 01.01.2012 as such she was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and thus a minor. It is further submitted that there are serious allegations against the applicant in the statements of the victim and there are no such material contradictions in her statements which would discredit the prosecution story in full. It is further submitted that the pleading in paragraph 24 of the affidavit that the shop keeper from whom the drink was alleged to have purchased has stated that his shop was closed on the time in question is totally incorrect inasmuch as, perusal of the statement of the said shop keeper which is annexure-11 to the affidavit, does not go to show that he has stated as such anywhere that his shop was closed at the time of incident. It is submitted that as such the bail be rejected. 7. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties, perusing the records and it is evident that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigating. The date of birth of the victim as per school records is 01.01.2012 and as such she was aged about 14 years at the time of incident. She names the applicant in her statements during investigation and alleges rape being committed by him on her. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant on which court concerned has taken cognizance. The pleading in paragraph 24 of the affidavit does not bare out from the Annexure- 11 being the statement as referred in the said paragraph. No ground for bail is made out. 8. The present bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Manoj (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad