WAHID KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant and learned AGA have already been heard and perused the record. As per prosecution version about four months earlier of lodging the F.I.R., the applicant/accused had intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and consent under threat. The prosecutrix became pregnant and the incident exposed to all. The prosecutrix requested the applicant/accused to marry her. Then the applicant/accused advised her first to undergo abortion then he would marry with her. The prosecutrix accordingly, had undergone abortion seven days prior of lodging the F.I.R. When the applicant/ accused refused to marry her, the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.06.2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant/accused vehemently stated that from the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. itself it is obvious that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and when accused refused to marry her then F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of four months. The prosecutrix is major above 22 years of age. The entire story of having become pregnant because of sexual relation with the applicant/ accused, is a cooked up story. In fact, the applicant/accused has been booked in this case because of party faction. Applicant/accused is languishing in jail since 05.09.2011. He, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.c. fully corroborated the prosecution story. Applicant/accused had forcibly intercourse with her under threat, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Considering the rival contentions of both the sides and without expressing any opinion, the applicant/accused deserves to be enlarged on bail.