MOMTA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated by the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner that the investigation. has not been fair in this case despite moving the several applications to the higher Police Authorities by the Naranram, brothers of the accused petitioner Momtaram. He further contended that due to party politics and enmity, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He justified and contended that no independent evidence so far could be collected against the accused petitioner.

(2.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that Mst. Pankhu has categorically disclosed to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. PC that the accused petitioner forcibly took and raped her. He also pointed out the report of the Medical Board wherein it has categorically been stated that Mst. Pankhu was subjected to forcible induction of a hard object in her vagina and possibility of rape could not be ruled out. Lastly he contended that it is further clear from the X -Ray report and chemical examination that age of Pankhu is about 9 to 10 years.

(3.) UNDER the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.