Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIKRAM versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vikram v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 1286 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6104 (20 March 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

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1286 of 2006

Vikram Vs.  State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

This application is filed by the applicant Vikram with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime no. 438 of 2005 udner sections 363,364A and 376 I.P.C. P.S. Sikandrabad district Bulandshahar.

According to the prosecution version the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mahipal Singh at P.S. Sikandrabad on 28.10.2005 at 2 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred  on 20.10.2005 at about 6 p.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and two other unknown accused. According to the F.I.R. the prosecutrix Km. Meena aged bout 15 years had gone to Jangal on 20.10.2005 at about 6 p.m. to attend the call of nature but she did not come back by which the family member became worried and made search in the Jangal as well as in the village abadi but the prosecutrix could not be trace out. On 28.10.2005 at about 9 p.m. an information was given by the daughter of the first informant from Noida that the prosecutrix had come back to Noida. Thereafter the first informant  reached to his son's house at Noida and made query to the prosecutrix in respect of her missing then she disclosed that on 20.10.2005 at about  6 p.m. when she was going to Jangal, the applicant and two other co-accused persons met her in the way. she was caught hold by them and taken away in the Maruti Van. She was taken to an unknown place where she was raped. The applicant was asked on 27.10.2005 by some persons to send the girl to her house because the police intended to make raid at his house. Thereafter the prosecutrix was brought on a motor cycle which was driven by the applicant and co-accused Kalu was also the pillion  rider and she was left at her father house at Noida.

The prosecutrix was medically examined on 28.10.2005 at 3.15 p.m. In the x-ray examination report no injury was seen on her person except four ½ cm nail marks on the route of neck left side and no injury was seen on her private parts. Hymen was old hailed and it was irregular. According to x-ray report bones of the wrist and elbow of the prosecutrix was found fused and no spermatozoa was found on the vaginal smears. According to the supplementary medical examination report the age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years.

Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and  Sri Brijesh Sahai learned counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant :-

1)the F.I.R. has been lodged after 8 days of the alleged occurrence and it has been lodged when the prosecutrix returned to her parent's house even then no information in respect of the missing of the prosecutrix was given to the police station concerned.

2)That according to the medical examination report, the prosecutrix is major girl, she herself went in the company of the applicant with her free will and consent and she did not make any resistance even she did not make any protest no where whereas she moved from one to another place in the company of the applicant and other co-accused

3)that the prosecutrix was a consenting party she was having love affairs with the applicant and she used to send letters even by writing a few word with  her blood.

4)That the statement of the first informant was recorded on 14.11.2005 under section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that when his grand daughter has reached at the house of his son, then he went there and enquired about the incident and  the applicant was arrested on 15.11.2005.

5)That the I.O. called the prosecutrix on several occasions for interrogation but she did not appear before the I.O. it is clearly mentioned in the case diary itself. Thereafter on the application  made by the first informant the investigation was transferred and it was entrusted to P.S. Gulaoti The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 31.12.2005.

6)that the prosecutrix is a major girl. She is more than 18 years. According to the school registration her date of birth is 2.7.1987.According to the medical report also, she was found above 18 years.

7)That the prosecutrix remained in the company of the applicant for about 8 days and according to her statement she was left to her house by the applicant on a motor cycle but no where she made protest which shows that she was a consenting party but subsequently, she  gave a coloured version under the pressure of her parents to save her reputation in the society.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant  by submitting :-

1)that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons and she was illegally detained by the applicant and other co- accused. The allegation of committing rape is also against him.

2)That the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 3.12.2005 in which she has supported the prosecution version. The prosecutrix is minor.  

3)That the letter annexed along with the bail  application alleged to have been written by the prosecutrix are fabricated/forged.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and keeping in view the  facts and circumstances of the case particularly delay in  lodging the F.I.R. and that  no information was given by the first informant in respect of the missing of the prosecutrix, the age of the prosecutrix is above 18 years, love letter written by the prosecutrix to the applicant , and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.

Let the applicant Vikram involved in case crime no.   438 of 2005  under Sections 363,366A,376  I.P.C.,     P.S. Sikendrabad District  Bulandshahar  be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

Dated:  10.3.2006

NA              


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.