YATENDRA SINGH @ SONU PARIHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Yatendra Singh @ Sonu Parihar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) His first bail application was rejected vide order dated 29.10.2004. Thereafter, the statements of the prosecutrix and 9 other witnesses have been recorded during trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being born on 1.8.1988 was a juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Juvenile) Act, 2000 on the date of occurrence. Therefore, he was entitled to be released on bail but, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the court earlier. He has also submitted that the statements of main witnesses having been recorded, no purpose would be served by keeping the accused petitioner in custody any longer. He has further submitted that there are varying versions of the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and also in Court Statement. Learned PP as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.