HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31408 of 2024 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard Sri J.P. Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nirma Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri S.K. Chaudhary, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 61 of 2024, under Sections 307, 376(3), 506 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 2.3.2024 and has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations contained in the first information report, a specific role of committing rape upon the victim has been assigned to the applicant. The victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution version. The medical report of Dr. Laxmi Singh, CHC Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devi Prasad Tripathi, Manish Kumar Pandey, Manvendra Singh, Nirma Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gunjan Sharma, Shiv Karan Chaudhary Chhotu @ Rajendra Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Bindki, Fatehpur dated 1.3.2024 also lends corroboration to the prosecution case. As per the school records and statement of the principal of Prathmic Vidyalaya Joniha, Khajuha, Fatehpur the victim was a minor on the alleged date of occurrence. Further, during the course of trial, the victim in her testimony, remained consistent with the prosecution version and categorically stated that the applicant had committed rape upon her. The offence is grave. There is likelihood that the applicant has committed the offence. 6. Considering the gravity of the offence medical report dated 1.3.2024, age of the victim and the material available on record, in my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. However, considering the period of incarceration of the applicant, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for information. September 17, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 31408 of 2024 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad