TEEKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix who is also the informant of the present case and is a married lady aged about 45 years as per medical report. The prosecutrix is also having three children who are grown up. It is stated that five years before lodging the FIR, the applicant had subjected the rape on the victim when she had gone to take medicines for her child and herself. The statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not corroborate her medical report. The applicant is in jail since 20.1.2015.

(3.) LEARNED AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.