Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 997 (ALL)

Ram Babu v. State of U. P.

2018-04-23

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2018
JUDGMENT : Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. 1. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2014, u/s 376 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station-Asothar, District-Fatehpur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Sri Babu Lal Ram, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Yadav, counsel for the applicant has rendered very able assistance to the Court and in fact, has presented an exemplary spectacle as to how the lawyers are expected to assist the Court. 5. The facts as have been laid bare before the Court are such which by themselves speak about the actual occurrence and the manner in which it must have happened. The statement of the victim as recorded by the Magistrate itself discloses that she was coaxed and cajoled by the applicant and then some toffees and chocolates were given to her. Tempted by the same she had gone along with the applicant and then she was locked in a room and she was made to lie on the cot. There she was denuded and then rape was committed upon her. She started bleeding and was taken to the hospital where she was medically examined. The victim was a child of seven years and was a student of class IV. The medical examination completely lends corroboration to the oral allegations and the sexual assault upon this child has been confirmed by the doctor. Her vagina was found having tears and she was still bleeding at the time of her medical examination. Her hymen was also found torn. Learned counsel for the applicant did not make any attempt either to justify or to vindicate the crime or to project any of those lame, unacceptable defence pleas in the name of arguments, which are untenable. 6. Not much is there to be rebutted by the learned AGA as the facts speak for themselves. 7. 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 applicant has not made out a case for bail. The prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected therefore. 8. 7. 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 applicant has not made out a case for bail. The prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected therefore. 8. 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.