Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rishipal v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 10057 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1776 (27 July 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 10057 of 2005

Rishipal...Vs....... State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

Heard Sri G.C. Saxena learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A.

From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the alleged occurrence has taken place on 29.8.2004 at about 7.00 p.m. Its F.I.R. was registered on 2.9.2004 at 10.30 p. m. by one Rakesh the father of the prosecutrix in case crime no.  181 of 2004, under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut. The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant committed rape with Km. Tanu aged about two years. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix shows that she was medically examined  on 2.9.2004 at Women Hospital, Meerut and there was a injury i.e. superficial  tear of 1/2  cm at 6 O' clock position above anus, laberal margins red. Bleeds on touch. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case the F.I.R. is delayed by three days and the prosecution story is highly improbable because it was not possible to commit the rape with a girl of two years and the allegations of rape is also false because the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact and no spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear. It is further contended that the medical examination report was conducted after four days  of the alleged occurrence.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is having no substance at this stage for granting bail to the applicant, because in such cases generally the F.I.Rs. are not promptly lodged due to some social and other prevailing circumstances .

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find  that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.

Dated:  27.7.2005.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.