RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ms. Santosh Kohli, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. She also submitted that there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the report with the police. She further pointed out certain discrepancies while comparing the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Code of Cri. Procedure and under Section 164 Code of Cri. Procedure. She has submitted that the place of occurrence varies between the two statements. She also drew my attention to the M.L.C. and pointed out that as per the report of the Doctor there was no external injury on the body of the prosecutrix and further there was a delay of one month in sending the semen to the C.S.F.L. Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in the present case the prosecutrix was of less than 16 years and the question of external injury in the present case was irrelevant in as much as the date of incident is 21st February, 1992 and the M.L.C. wasprepared on 23rd February. 1992. He also submitted that the delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR will be satisfactorily explained during the trial as the prosecutrix is a minor girl. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the lower court records. Form the records, I find that there is a medical report by Dr. Sangeeta Taneja and according to this report the vagina was admitting one finger. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence that a rape is alleged to have been committed on a minor girl. I am of the views that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The observations given by me hereinabove will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. Lower court records be sent back forthwith. Petition dismissed.