Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53143 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30411 of 2024 Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Narayan Tripathi,Ram Badan Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Narayan Tripathi, 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. 205 of 2024, under Section 376(2)(i) of I.P.C., Police Station - Bewar, District - Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have committed rape with the deaf, dumb and blind sister of the informant in the night of 10/11.06.2024 at about 01:00 AM. The informant has called his neighbour Rajkishor and both of them saw the applicant without clothes. The applicant after seeing the informant and Rajkishor, is stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR is delayed by about 12 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The conduct of the informant seems to be unnatural as he instead of resisting the offence of rape being with his sister, has called his neighbour Rajkishor to the place of occurrence and seeing both of them, the applicant is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence. 6. Learned counsel has further argued that the victim is major aged about 22 years. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present as he did not want to repay the loan taken from the informant. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the victim is a deaf, dumb and blind girl and she did not know the consequences. She could not raise any alarm as she is dumb and the applicant has taken advantage of her precarious conditions. Even the Indian Penal Code provides that the consent of such kind of a person shall not be deemed to be the consent in the eyes of law, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the victim is a deaf, dumb and blind lady coupled by the fact that the FIR is prompt, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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:- 10.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad