VEERENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the prosecutrix Shabnam is major and on medical examination her age has been assessed at about 18 years; that in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has stated that she was in love with the applicant since last 2 years but in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded after inordinate delay of nine days, she assigned the role of rape to applicant under influence of her parents; that the prosecutrix was consenting party and the applicant did not commit any rape on her; that the prosecutrix Shabnam has given affidavit in support of the bail application and as per her I.D. Proof, Election I.D. Card at page 11 of the bail application, she is aged about above 20 years as she is born in 1994; that since the first informant was against the affair of prosecutrix and applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 20.12.2014.

(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail but it was conceded that no academic certificate or other proof of date of birth is available.

(3.) LET the applicant Veerendra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 683 of 2014 under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act P.S. Kunwargaon District Badun on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions: - -