JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned brief holder, representing the State and perused the record of the case.

2. By means of this application, applicant-Chintu alias Rohit, who is involved in Case Crime No. 24 of 2021, under sections 376-AB IPC and section 5M/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, police station Hastinapur, district Meerut, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant Virendra Kumar, who is the father of the victim lodged first information report dated 01.02.2021 against the applicant alleging inter alia that when her daughter, aged about 3 years, was playing near the house, the applicant came there and taken away her to his house, where he committed rape upon her. On hearing the screams of the child, one Pinki, wife of Sohveer (Jatav), resident of the same village, went to the house of the applicant and from there she brought up the child in an unconscious state and given to the family of informant. Thereafter, the information about the aforesaid occurrence had been given to the police on 112 number, on which the police reached at the spot and arrested the accused.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not committed rape upon the victim. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the victim in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. has not levelled allegation of rape against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is facing detention since 02.02.2021. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the victim is an innocent and small child of only three years old. It is next submitted by learned A.G.A. that the medical examination report of the victim is corroborated with the prosecution version. As per opinion of the doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the victim, there are signs suggestive of use of some kind of force on the genital region of the victim. The same are suggestive of sexual assault. Her hymen was ruptured irregularly and blood stains were also found on her perineum region. The victim has also received injury on her face i.e. slight abrasion (reddish) in colour, on the right side of the bridge of the nose near cheek 0.5 x 0.25 cm. The Investigating Officer during investigation recorded the statements of Virendra Kumar (father of the victim), Smt. Rani (mother of the victim), Smt. Pinki, Smt. Rajni, Smt. Vinita, Smt. Shashi, Omvir, Babu, Smt. Bala, Jitendra and Mange, who have supported the prosecution case in their statements. The victim is a very small child, aged about 3 years, who does not understand what had happened to her, therefore, she could not narrate the incident. She has told her mother in a gesture about the incident. Learned A.G.A. also stated that the mother of the victim would not concoct a false story for implicating anyone in such matter as the dignity and future of an innocent girl is also at stake. He also submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, no leniency should be given to the applicant as the crime is not only against the small girl/victim, it is against the society as a whole.

6. This Court is of the view that in this case, a small