SURJEET Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having suffered incarceration of more than two years and seven months as per his nominal roll, petitioner has filed this application for regular bail in FIR No. 92/2010 under Sections 363/366/368/376 IPC registered at PS R.K. Puram, Delhi after the deposition of prosecutrix and other public witnesses has been recorded. As per the bone age report of prosecutrix, she is aged between 17 and 18 years. She was recovered from petitioner's house in the same locality, after about a period of three months. Petitioner's case is that prosecutrix had willingly married him and that it is so evident from the marriage certificate of 29th April, 2010 and the photograph on record. Plea of petitioner's counsel is that petitioner had married prosecutrix with her consent. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State points out that prosecutrix has deposed otherwise in the evidence before the trial court and had asserted that she was forcibly married with petitioner in a temple. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had shown the copy of deposition of prosecutrix (PW-1) recorded by the trial court. Though this Court is not required to appreciate the evidence at the stage of bail but after having cursorily gone through her deposition, I find that now there is no apprehension of petitioner/accused tampering with the evidence and since the trial of this case is likely to take some time, therefore, without commenting on the merits of this case, petitioner Surjeet S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(2.) With aforesaid directions, the bail application stands disposed of.