Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2178 (ALL)

Deo Kishor v. State Of U. P.

2019-09-18

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. Heard Shri Chetan Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The F.I.R. was lodged by Khursheed Alam alleging therein that on 10.10.2018 at about 11.00 A.M. his daughter Arsiya aged about 7 years went downstairs to close the motor pump, Deo Kishore, applicant caught hold of her and took her inside a room and thereafter removed her clothes. He also removed his own clothes and tried to force himself upon her. The victim raised cries whereupon a neighbour informed the mother of the victim. Thereafter the mother rushed to the room and on opening the door she saw the accused applicant and her daughter in naked condition and the applicant was committing obscene act on her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as there was a dispute between the applicant and the complainant with regard to money. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail vehemently. 5. The medical report of the victim however under the heading Details regarding sexual violence and as to whether there was any penetration by Penis in the Genitalia of the victim shows as "YES". The victim in her statement under section 161 has also confirmed the version of the F.I.R. that the applicant Deo Kishore had caught hold of her and taken her into a room and thereafter removed her clothes and also is own clothes and had laid down upon her. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C., copy of which has been filed alongwith the rejoinder affidavit also the victim has clearly stated that the accused had removed her clothes and his own clothes and laid upon her and that his penis had penetrated in her Genitalia. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the statements of the victim recorded under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have corroborated by the F.I.R. version prima-facie in my opinion no ground for grant of bail is made out. 7. The bail application is accordingly rejected.