RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as Shri Kamlesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that though in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of first informant and other witnesses including the statement of victim recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. there is only allegation of molesting the victim and also torn her clothes, but the victim in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. she has made allegation of rape against all the accused persons, thus, there are various contradictions in the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the medical examination of the victim was conducted after more than one month of the incident wherein no internal or external injury was found on the person of the victim, her hymen was found old torn and healed, thus medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that as per high school certificate of the victim she is aged about 17 years. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 6/7/2023, having no criminal history.

(3.) Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.