Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1491 (ALL)

Lalji v. State of U. P.

2015-06-04

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2015
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicants Lalji and Jwala on bail in Case Crime No. 2 of 2015, u/s 363, 366 IPC., Police Station-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel is that according to the medical examination, the girl has been found to be 19 years in age. Further submission is that in the FIR, the applicants were not named and the FIR was only against the co-accused Suraj. Submission is that subsequently under the influence of the parents, the girl has changed the statement and the applicants have been nominated. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has brought the attention of this court to the statement given by the alleged victim girl Sabita. It has been specifically alleged by the girl during the course of the statement that when she had gone to attend the call of nature, she was alone, the applicant Suraj came there and started carrying her by force. It was further alleged that Jwala's father Lalji by force made her seated on the motorcycle. When she tried to raise alarm and protest, she was gagged by Jwala. Later on, she was brought to Bhadohi where co-accused Nand, Suraj were present, there she was kept in a garage and co-accused Suraj raped her a number of times. Submission is that there is no ambiguity in the role assigned to the applicants during the course of the statement given by the girl and it is apparent from the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that the applicants were responsible for the abduction of the girl. It was further submitted by the learned AGA that the detention of the applicants in jail is also not so prolonged which by itself may constitute some ground to release the accused on bail in a given case. 5. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicants have not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicants is rejected at this stage. 6. 5. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicants have not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicants is rejected at this stage. 6. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.