ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 441 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Saurikh, District Kannuj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was registered on 20.06.2017 by the father of the victim under Sections 363 and 366 IPC against the present sole accused applicant Arjun Singh was enticed away the victim and while going she has taken Rs. 20,000/- along with valuable ornaments with her. She herself call Arjun on telephone went to Vidhuna, Bharthana and thereafter Gudgaon and remain in the company of the applicant for 20 good days. She in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that after coming to know that Arjun Singh is a married m an and now she is not more interested to remain in the company with the applicant. Her conduct shows that lady herself leaving her house on her own choice along with cash money and join the company of the applicant and remain for twenty good days without any effective resistance, which clearly shows that the victim is a consenting party. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.