PARVINDER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant- Parvinder seeks bail in Case Crime No. 93 of 2017, under Sections 376-D I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per F.I.R. victim, daughter of first informant was four months pregnant at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. on 29th March, 2017. It is further submitted that ultrasound of the victim was made on 31.3.2017 wherein she was found seven and half months pregnant. It is also submitted in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she used to go from the house without informing anybody on call of the accused persons which reflects some degree of consent. It is also argued by him that four criminal cases shown in the criminal history in three cases he has been provided bail while in remaining one case under Section 302 I.P.C. he has been acquitted. Bail orders and judgment are made available on record. It is contented that accused applicant and co-accused Nikhil @ Guddu are real brothers and in the Indian society it is not easily acceptable that real brothers may commit rape with same victim.It is next contented that co-accused Niknil @ Guddu has been provided bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 1.6.2017 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18644 of 2017 and the case of the accused applicant is on the same footings. It is lastly contented that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.6.2017. On these grounds bail is prayed.