Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1624 (ALL)

Vimal Alias Nanhkoo, Sobaran v. State of U. P.

2005-08-31

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri G. C. Saxena and Sri N. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and the learned a. G. A. ( 2 ) THE applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2005 under Sections 363 and 366 i. P. C. P. S. Kotwali Fatehgarh District Farrukhabad. ( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case, the F. I. R. was lodged by siya ram at police station Kotwali , Fatehgarh District Farrukhabad on 1. 2. 2005 at 6. 15 P. M. , in respect of the incident which had occurred on 13. 12. 2004 at about 100 P. M. ( 4 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that one Km. Kiran aged about 15 years , daughter of the first informant had gone to Fatehgar to take medicine from Dr. Balgovind. After taking the medicines, she did not came back to her house. Thereafter, her search was done, then the first informant came to know that about 1. 00 P. M. she had come out from the clinic, then, the applicant and co-accused Anii had taken away to her by Taxi. She was seen in the company of the applicant and to other co-accused persons by one Subedar Singh on the same day, at about 3. 00 P. M. when, they were having the conversation with one Ajai. It is alleged that the prosecutrix had been enticed away by the applicant and co-accused but she could hot be traced out till now and the accused persons were also absconding, then the F. I. R. was lodged by complainant on 1. 2. 2005. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 18 years. She was not kidnapped by any person but she left her parents house with her free will and consent and the F. I. R. is delayed by 1 1/2 months without any plausible explanation. 2. 2005. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 18 years. She was not kidnapped by any person but she left her parents house with her free will and consent and the F. I. R. is delayed by 1 1/2 months without any plausible explanation. ( 6 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 15 years and she has not been recovered till now and the applicant is named in the F. I. R. and the alleged delay in lodging the F. I. R. is natural because in such cases, generally F. I. Rs, are not lodged immediately because the life of the victim remains in the hands of the miscreants, therefore, nobody takes such risk in lodging the F. I. R. immediately. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. , it is an admitted fact that till now, the prosecutrix has not been recovered. The applicant is named in the F. I. R. and during the investigation, has come in the light that the prosecutrix was seen in the company of the applicant and other co-accused. The prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 15 years , so she cannot be said to be a consenting party. If any girl below 18 years of age is kidnapped or enticed for the purposes of marriage, with her free will and consent , the accused shall be liable for the offence punishable under Sec. 363/ 366 [p. O. In case of kidnapping/ abduction, generally the F. I. Rs. are not promptly lodged because the life of the kidnapped/ abducted person remains in the hands of the miscreants or if it is some times lodged the names of the accused are not generally disclosed, delay in lodging the F. I. R. In such cases is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. ( 8 ) THE applicant is not entitled for bail. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY this bail application is rejected at this stage. . .