HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31313 of 2026 Court No. - 68 (Sr. No.1 out of 185) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 8.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11870 of 2026. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.304 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(Ka), 351(3) B.N.S., Section 3/4, 5J(ii) POCSO Act, Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the DNA report received from the FSL, Moradabad, indicates that the applicant is not the biological father of the offspring given birth to by the victim. As such, the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 20.11.2025, having no criminal antecedent to his credit, is entitled to be enlarged on bail. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that already eight witnesses have been examined and the conclusion reached regarding the paternity of the offspring Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yusuf .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) of the victim cannot be held to be conclusive proof of the offence committed with the victim, who has categorically stated that it was the applicant who had committed the said offence with her. As such, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as already eight witnesses have been examined coupled with the fact that victim has categorically deposed against the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The instant bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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. September 8, 2026 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31313 of 2026 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad