JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Bharatlal alias Fatta, a young boy of 21 years, who is alleged to have kidnapped/abducted the prosecutrix Mst. Guddi alias Sharda. Earlier to this accused Ram Singh, Jiwan and Lakhkho in this case were ordered to be released on bail by my brother Hon'ble M.B. Sharma, J. vide his order, dated March 25, 1988. the allegations in the case are that one Pooran Singh, father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report on December 13, 1987 alleging that his daughter Guddi has been kidnapped by Bharat and that he was accompanied by some more persons. It was also mentioned (hat a box which was having jewellry and cash has also been taken away by the accused. She is alleged to have been recovered on January 2, 1988 and was medically examined. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC she came out with a story that there were two more persons when she was removed from the village and that she was taken to Jaipur in a train and thereafter to Ahmedabad then to Bombay. She how ever, alleged rape against these persons. She also stated that the cause of removal was a previous enmity between the accused persons and her father and that she was abducted with a motive to humiliate her family. She was medically examined and Medico Legal Jurist opined that she was above 16 years and below 18 years. Regarding rape he could not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix neither on any part of the body nor on genital organs and that in her vagina entered only one index finger. He could not opine, about the commission of rape and stated that for previous sexual intercourse opinion will be given after receiving the chemical examination report. Her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC on January 4, 1988 where some more accused persons were sought to be implicated and a case of gang rape was alleged. It was further stated that accused Bharatlal had taken her to his relations' place, both at Bombay as well as in Brindavan. She also came out with a case that she was taken to Bombay in a jeep. Accused moved a bail application which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. 2. It was further stated that accused Bharatlal had taken her to his relations' place, both at Bombay as well as in Brindavan. She also came out with a case that she was taken to Bombay in a jeep. Accused moved a bail application which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that it is a case where love affairs were going on between the accused and the prosecutrix and she had voluntarily gone with him upto Bombay and that she is a major girl and she wanted to marry him, but because the relations between her parents and the accused are badly strained this false case is made out against him. It is submitted that to the same effect the accused has given a statement while interrogated by the police immediately at the time of occurrence. Learned Counsel submits that his client is still ready and willing to marry the prosecutrix if her parents are ready and willing to give her in matriage to him. It is submitted that the persons who were being made accused in this case are father of the petitioner, his uncle, his three brothers Khoobi, Lakho and Govinda, his mother and sisters. Two more relations of the petitioner have been added as accused in the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC namely, Gokulchand and Pritam. It is submitted that Gokul is the first cousin being Bhua's son of the petitioner and Pritam is first cousin of the father. It is submitted that the accused in fact was apprehended With the prosecutrix two days before the arrest and recovery has been shown later on. From 31-12-1987 upto 2-1-1988 the prosecutrix has been subjected to several threats by her parents and Ors. and statement has been taken from her under Section 161 Cr.PC it is submitted that she was further tortured to give a statement under Section 164 Cr.PC which is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence and other evidence of the prosecution. It is also submitted that a speaking order was passed by Hon'ble Justice M B. Sharma, J. while granting bail to Ram Singh, Jiwan and Lakho in this case. 3. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that this is a case of gang rape where there is direct allegation of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC and that Bharat has played an important role. 3. Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that this is a case of gang rape where there is direct allegation of the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC and that Bharat has played an important role. He also used fire arm for terrorising the prosecutrix. He has stated that the accused wanted to sell the prosecutrix also according to her statement under Section 164, Criminal PC and that legislature in its wisdom has made the law more strict in cases of gang rape and the Evidence Act has also been accordingly amended. Thus, it is submitted that bail application should be rejected. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant. 5. I have perused the entire case diary from cover to cover and I would not like to narrate many circumstances which are alarming as to how the exagerations have been made in the statements of the prosecutrix but few things require to be high lighted in this bail application they are that all the 11 accused in this case belong to the same family and are blood relation as mentioned above, like father, uncle, brother, cousins and their ages range from 32 years to 18 years out of which 8 are males and 3 are females. It would be a serious question to be considered at the time of the trial as to whether the real brothers and the cousins would be a party to the gang rape. Secondly nothing has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of the accused or the prosecutrix on which a case under Section 380 IPC was registered Medical Jurist, it appears from the diary, was pressurised through Chief Medical Officer and the history of Sharda was got reported in the injury report itself which phenomenon I have not seen in any other case but the Medico Legal jurist after taking down the whole history has categorically stated that signs are inconsistent with the history given by her, meaning thereby, he has contradicted the story of the prosecutrix rather than corroborating it. The prosecution has not subjected her any examination by any Medical Board so as to contradict the report of Medico Legal Jurist. Besides this, there are statements of the witnesses of the villagers who have stated about the previous relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. The prosecution has not subjected her any examination by any Medical Board so as to contradict the report of Medico Legal Jurist. Besides this, there are statements of the witnesses of the villagers who have stated about the previous relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. Her age is also above 16 years. Doctor has how ever, stated that she is below 18 years but still she is the age of discretion in the words of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1958 SC 143 . Besides this, the dates provided by the Radiologist are consistent with the medical jurisprudence that she may be even a major girl. 6. I was not supposed to quote this all in this bail application and would have decided this by passing very small order, but in view of the fact the strict provisions of law have been made in such cases and the order ex facie should not be interpreted in a manner that the bails are granted in gang rape case so as even to make an attempt to outrage the judicial process. I have passed this detailed order as the diary presents shooting facts and at one stage even the Police Officer and the Prosecuting Agency have expressed doubt about the correctness of the whole story. Be that as it may, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case I am inclined to accept this bail application. 7. In the result, this bail application is accepted, and it is directed that the accused petitioner, Bharat Lal son of Ram Singh, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with stipulation to appear before that court as and when called upon to do during the pendency of trial against him in this case.Bail granted. *******