HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32556 of 2024 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Janardan Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Sandeep Kumar Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.63 of 2024, u/s 363, 366, 376-D, 120-B IPC and Section 5G/16/17 POCSO Act, P.S. Phaphamau, District Prayagraj. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 23.3.2024 by Santosh Kumar Tiwari against Pradeep Kumar alleging therein that at about 9 a.m. he left his grand- daughter at APVM Ganga Gurukulam, Phaphamau which was the examination centre of BBS Intermediate College, Gohari where his grand- daughter was studying and then he returned back. At about 10 a.m., he received a call from a teacher that the girl has not reached at the centre. He then immediately reached the centre and did not find her there. He has suspicion that Pradeep Kumar of the village has lured and kidnapped her. Pradeep Kumar was tried to be called but his phone was switched-off and then Sandeep Kumar was also tried to be called but his mobile phone was Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Kumar Mishra, Anil Kumar Yadav, Janardan Prasad Tripathi, Prem Prakash Yadav, Utsav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Singh Sandeep Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) also switched-off. He has given an information to the police station Phaphamau. His grand-daughter is aged about 17 years. 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. It is further argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The implication of the applicant has surfaced in the present matter in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation. The father of co-accused Pradeep Kumar and the applicant reached at the place where Pradeep and the victim were there and thus the applicant has also been nominated by the victim as an accused on the pressure of her parents. It is further argued that story of the applicant committing rape upon the victim is false. 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 13.8.2024. 6. Per contra learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation and has been assigned the role of committing rape upon the victim after accused Pradeep Kumar committed rape upon her. It is further argued that the victim is a minor girl. The present case is a case of gang rape. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. The bail application of the applicant be thus rejected. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation. The victim is a minor girl. Co-accused Pradeep Kumar and the applicant are alleged to have committed rape upon the victim. The present case is a case of gang rape. There is no reason for false implication of the applicant. 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. September 12, 2025 Gaurav Kuls BAIL No. 32556 of 2024 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad