JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh. J.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal learned counsel for the applicantand learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Ramesh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime no, 12 of 2005, under Sections 376 I.P.C. P.S. Mirzapur, District Saharanpur.
3. From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by one Dheer Singh at P.S. Mirzapur, District Saharanpur on 18.1.2005 at 9.30 a.m. against the applicant in respect of the incident occurred on 14.1.2005.
4. According to prosecution version one Smt Sheeshwati the sister of the first informant was married in village of Banjarey wala where she gave birth to a female child, but subsequently, she was deserted by her husband. Thereafter, she was re-mareied with the applicant about seven years prior to the alleged occurrence. The female child had also come with her mother at the house of the applicant The female child Km Rachna, the prosecutrix of the present case was studying in class VIII and she was residing at the house of her maternal uncle, the first informant of this case. The mother of the prosecutrix was ailing so the applicant was called came to the house of the applicant on 14.1.2005 to provide assistance to her ailing mother but in the same night the applicant committed rape with the prosecutrix. On the next day the prosecutrix disclosed this fact to Smt. Sushila the niece of the first informant who is married in the same of the applicant, Smt. Sushila sent a telephonic massage on the next day, and then he came in village Kasampur on 17.1.2005. Then he came and inquired about the matter from the prosecutrix who stated that her hands were tied, by the applicant, thereafter, she was raped by the applicant. Thereafter the people of that village were collected who accused the applicant then the first informant and the prosecutrix went to police station where F.I.R. was lodged. The age of the prosecutrix is 13 years according to the F.I.R...
5. From the perusal of the medical examination report the age of the prosecutrix is between 16 to 17 years and there was a bleeding from her vagina present coming from uterus. No spermatozoa was found In her vagina/ smear.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was falsely implicated by the first informant who is his brother-in-law (sala) only to grab his property and the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse. The hymen was torn and healed. It is further contended the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she states that the applicant came to his house under intoxication of liquor of his saying the tea was prepared in which some intoxicating material was added which was given to her mother who became unconscious. Her hands were tied with cots and cloth was kept in her mouth then she was raped thereafter she became unconscious in the morning when she become conscious saw that she and the applicant were lying in a naked condition, this statement is not reliable.
7. It is opposed by learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant is step father of the prosecutrix and rape was committed by him. The prosecution story fully corroborated by the medical evidence and If the applicant is remained in the jail the property cannot be grabbed by the first in formant. It is further contended that the statement of the prosecution was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had made allegation that she was raped by the applicant forcefully.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage