HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31551 of 2025 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Mantu Gond @ Dilip, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 64, 115(2), 333, 351(3), 352 BNS, registered at P.S. Mahuwadeeh, District Deoria. 4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 30.06.2025 by the victim against the applicant alleging therein that her husband is a drunkard and at times he remains in the house and at times he goes out to earn livelihood. She has three children who are small. She lives in the house alone with the children. The applicant Mantu Gond on 28.06.2025 in the night when she was alone entered in the house and established physical relationship with her. She tried to save herself but he gagged her mouth. She made a shout after which he ran away. Due to social reason, she did not tell to anyone about it but again when the applicant came to her house and assaulted her and threatened her she has come to lodge the FIR. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim is a married major woman aged about 38 years having three children. While placing para 16 of the affidavit it is submitted that the applicant is doing business of selling fruits and the victim had purchased fruits several times from him and no payment was made for the same and there was a balance due upon the victim and when the applicant demanded the same there was hot talks between them after which the present FIR has been lodged. It is Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Mishra, Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mantu Gond Alias Dilip .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) submitted that the applicant is not involved in any such incident. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated, para 15 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further submitted that the investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been submitted, copy of the same is annexed as annexure S.A.4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.09.2025. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after two days of the incident. It is submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 03.07.2025. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Sabre Alam and Hasmuddin the two sons of the victim are the eye witnesses of the incident who are also arrayed as eye witnesses in the charge sheet and their names find at Serial No. 3 and 4 respectively to the list of witnesses. It is submitted that the said two witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the victim has also corroborated the version of the FIR during investigation in her statements. It is submitted that in so far as the delay in lodging of the FIR is concerned, the victim has already stated the reason for coming after two days to the police station. It is submitted that the case is of denial but the prosecution evidence is clinching. It is submitted that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR and in the statements of the victim recording during investigation. There are two eye witnesses of the incident namely Sabre Alam and Hasmuddin who are the sons of the first informant/victim. Their presence at the place of incident is natural. The case of the applicant is of false implication due to money due upon the victim/first informant which is stated by himself. The delay in lodging of the FIR is well explained. The evidence against the applicant is clinching. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 8. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. September 16, 2025 M. ARIF BAIL No. 31551 of 2025 2 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad