Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that it is a case of consent. There are no injuries on the body of the victim.
Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the victim is a minor, therefore, this cannot be a case of consent.
Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the court to the submissions made by the victim where she has stated that the applicant had accompanied Urmila Devi who took the applicant in a jeep in which the applicant and his father were seated, where after, they travelled to different places.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that there was no resistance shown by the applicant and later an F.I.R. was lodged to implicate the entire family.
So far as the age of the victim is concerned, she is aged above 17 years. Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced, the applicant is entitled for bail. Let the applicant Pravesh @ Vishwanath involved in case crime No. 288 of 2009 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. P.S. Ganj Dundawara District Kanshi Ram Nagar be released on bail in this case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date : 23.6.2010 n.u.