OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Bail Application No. 1111/89 was decided by this Court on 9.5.1989 wherein it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age of the petitioner was below 16 years and, therefore he could bail. After hearing both the learned counsel, it was directed that the trial Court shall first determine the age of the petitioner after taking an inquiry. The trial Court after, recording evidence and receiving documents produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the age of the petitioner is more than 16 year. In view of the aforesaid finding, the learned counsel argued this application on merits.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in the present bail application contended that though it has been found by the trial court that the age of the petitioner is more than 16 years but simultaneously it observed that the age of the petitioner is about 19 years. Therefore learned counsel contended that looking for the age 5 the petitioner, the petitioner be released on bail. His further contention was the prosecution case has been negatived by the report of the doctor who did not find any external injury on the person of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel the referred to the report of medical jurist and so also of the pathologist.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application contending that in the aforesaid reports, there is a positive opinion of the doctor and the pathologist whereby it was expressed that the rape has been committed on the person of Sunita.