HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30642 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta, Advocate files vakalatnama on behalf of the first informant/O.P. No.4 today in Court which is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Mohit Behari Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anuj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record. 4. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Furkan Ali, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 151 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) BNS and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Asmauli, District Sambhal. 5. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 31.05.2025 by Tahseen against the applicant alleging therein that on 23.05.2025 at about 01:30 pm his daughter aged about 14 years was lured and enticed away by the applicant from the house. He then committed rape upon her in a house in village Mahlakpur which was told by his daughter. Report be lodged and action be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was not found to have received any injury either on her person or on her private part and as such the medical corroboration of the allegation of rape is not present. It is submitted while placing para 14 of the affidavit that the present case is a case of false implication as the informant/complainant and the brother of the applicant had some hot talks regarding payment of material purchased by the complainant and as such he has been falsely implicated by the informant and his family members. Further while placing the Supurdginama it is submitted that although the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Behari Mathur Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Furkan Ali .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) victim was handed over to her father by the police but in the said Supurdginama there is no reference of any allegation of rape upon her. It is submitted that as such the allegation of rape does not gets corroborated from the said document. It is further submitted that the victim was opined to be of 16 years as per certificate issued by the CMO concerned and by giving benefit of variation of two years she would be a major. It is submitted that charge sheet in the present matter has been submitted on 21.06.2025, para 22 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 13 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.06.2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recorded during investigation and there are allegations of rape. It is submitted that in so far as the ground of false implication as pleaded in para 14 of the affidavit is concerned, the same is without any corroboration and false inasmuch as there is nothing stated as to what was the transaction between the first informant and the brother of the applicant due to which they had indulged in hot talks which has resulted in lodging of the FIR. It is submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years as opined by the CMO concerned. It is further submitted that in so far as the Supurdginama is concerned, the said document is a document for handing over of the custody and disclosing allegations of the prosecution case in the same has no relevance at all. It is submitted that as such the prayer for bail be rejected. 8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR in which there is an allegation of enticing away the victim who is a minor and committing rape. The victim during investigation corroborates the same. She is opined her age to be 16 years by the CMO concerned. The Supurdginama is for a limited purpose in which dilating the offence has no relevance. The ground of false implication which is being argued and pleaded as per para 14 of the affidavit does not transpire confidence. No ground for bail is made out. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 9. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 9, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 30642 of 2025 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad