MONU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 172 of 2016, under Section 363, 368, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S.- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay of five days in lodging of the F.I.R. of the incident on 16.05.2016 at 17:15 hours which had taken place 22 hours before especially in view of the specific recital in the F.I.R. that the applicant and the other co-accused had kidnapped the daughter of the informant in his presence and had taken her somewhere on a motorcycle and he could not catch them despite chasing them for sometime. The delay in the F.I.R. clearly indicates that the prosecution story as spelt out therein, is absolutely false and concocted as keeping in view the normal human reaction, under such contingency the informant should have lodged the F.I.R. promptly. He next submitted that although the prosecutrix who as per her medical examination report is major, in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. has supported the prosecution case but the medical evidence on record is otherwise and it does not support the allegation of rape and it is evident that she had left her parental home on her own accord and lived with the applicant for seven days. He further submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 21.05.2016, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.