Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOMPAL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sompal And Another v. State Of U.P - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 19629 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16253 (18 September 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble (Mrs.) Saroj Bala,J.

This is an  application for bail moved on behalf of the applicants Sompal and Kanhiya   indicted in case crime No. 957  of 2006  under sections 354, 363, 376 (2) (G), 506  I.P.C. P.S. Seohara  District Bijnor.

Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar , learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A.  and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the First Information Report was lodged  about twenty hours after the commission of the offence making allegations of outraging the modesty of the girl. The learned counsel submitted that the informant and victim in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.c.  have made allegation of gang rape. The learned counsel urged that medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. The learned counsel pointed out that no mark of injury on body or private part of the victim was found and her age is seventeen years.

The learned A.G.A. argued that both the applicants took away the  victim inside the millet field on the point of country made pistol and committed rape on her.  

I have taken into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties.

The First Information Report was lodged after a lapse of twenty hours. There are no allegations of commission of rape in the First Information Report. The case crime no. 957 of 2006 was registered under sections 354 and 506 I.P.C. In the medical examination of the girl no mark of injury on her body or private part was found.  In view of these facts, I consider it to be a fit case for bail.  

Let the applicants Sompal and Kanhiya   indicted in case crime No. 957  of 2006  under sections 354, 363, 376 (2) (G), 506  I.P.C. P.S. Seohara  District Bijnor , be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Aks/19629/06

18.9.2006


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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