AMAR SINGH @ ANGAD Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 166/2010 under Sections 363/370/372/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

(2.) As per the allegations in the FIR, the prosecutrix was kidnapped in the year 2010 allegedly by the petitioner who then delivered the prosecutrix to a co-accused. The prosecutrix was recovered in the year 2016 and is alleged to have identified the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecutrix in her evidence before the trial court has deposed that she had identified the co-accused before the police and when she was shown a photograph of one uncle (petitioner herein) and aunty, in a haste she had stated that they were the ones who used to reside in her lane. She in her deposition before the Trial Court has declined to identify the petitioner and has denied the suggestion that it is the petitioner who had kidnapped her.