JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri N.A. Khan and Sri Yashwant Singh Yadav learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case Crime No. 36 of 2005, P.S. Kudhaud, District Jalaun under Sections 377 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) S.C/S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. Daraganj, District Allahabad.
3. From the perusal of the reco4e it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Smt Sitawati Devi at police station Daraganj on 17.3.2005 at 1.15 p.m. According to prosecution version one Sachin Kumar student of class -6, Sunif Nishad a student of class -2 and Km. Sushma Bhartiya a student of K.G.-2 were going for tuition for the last five months at the house of the applicant per day between 2.00 and 3.00 p.m. The first informant was apprised by her son Sachin Kumar that during the period of tuition the applicant was trying to commit unnatural offence inside the room. On that appraisal the mothers of the victim Sunil Nishad and Km. Sushma Bharti were contacted. They wer also apprised by the same incident. Then they made a complain!: to the mother of the applicant. Then she became angry and hurled abuses. All the three victim namel Sebhin Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Km. Sushma were medically examined. The medical examination report of Sachin Kumar shows that there was a injury around the anus and the medical examination report of Sunil Kumar Nishad shows that no injury was found around the anus. The medical examination report of Km. Sushma shows that her hymen was torn and according to supplementary medical examination report her age was about 12 years and below 16 years. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegation made against the applicant is absolutely false and baseless. He Is handicapped and not in a position to move and the applicant is graduate from Allahabad University. Due to partybandi he is doing tuitions of students to meet expenses and to earn for livelihood. The prosecution story is not supposed by medical evidence.
4. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the act done by the applicant is highly shameful being a teacher he has committed unnatural offecnce with his students who are minor. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by medical evidence and the statemdnts of the three victims were recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. in which they have supported the prosecution story. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get any sympathy. It is further contended that the applicant is doing routine work without any difficulty and it it wrong to say that he is not in a position to move, so the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.