SHAHID Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) BY means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 98 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and 3/5 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Meja, District Allahabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix Ruby as per medical opinion is major. She in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Annexure -4) has denied the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR, which was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay for more than four months by her brother. From the perusal of the facts stated by her her in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it appears that she was a consenting party who had eloped with applicant's brother Sonu on her own accord and solemnized marriage with him in Delhi. He next submitted that the applicant who is jail since 16.07.2014 and has no criminal antecedent to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.