JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
7. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the investigating Officer. She followed the F.I.R. version. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical examination report because according to medical examination report dated 12.8.2004 the prosecutrix was admitted in an unconscious condition in a hospital and it was a suspected case with rape history and putting her on road fallen from a four wheelers. She was admitted by the two police constables. According to the F.I.R. version and statement of the prosecutrix it was not a case of prosecution that the prosecutrix was fallen from any four wheeler on the road side. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital by the constables to provide medical aid. It shows that the alleged occurrence had been taken place as alleged by the prosecution.
8. It is further contended that according to the prosecution r version the prosecutrix was raped on 11.8.2004 at about 12.30 P.M. but her medical examination report dated 13.8.2004 shows that her hymen was fresh torn red in colour, which shows that she was not raped on 13.8.2004 but she was raped soon before the medical examination report dated 13.8.2004. It is further contended that the applicant and other co-accused person has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a student of B.Sc II year. His date of birth is 25.4.1986. It is further contended that during the investigation one Sakir was made accused at the place of Saket. It is further contended that the prosecutrix being major and well developed girl was moving freely and she was having her associations in which she was raped with her consent and became unconscious.
9. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the prosecutrix herself lodged the F.I.R. She was forced to be raped by the applicant and three other accused persons. Being a working girl, she was relying upon the pretext given in relation to her business work innocently but the prosecutrix was raped by the applicant and three other co-accused persons in a pre-planned manner at the knife point on 11.8.2004. According to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the trial court, she had come to the office on 12.8.2004 and when she was returning to her house, she was caught by the applicant and other co-accused persons and one handkerchief having some poisonous substance was kept on her mouth, the injection was injected and she was thrown from a vehicle on the road side. She became unconscious. Thereafter she was admitted by some other persons in a hospital, which clearly explains the circumstances in which she was admitted in a hospital on 12.8.2004. It is further submitted that according to the Medical Jurisprudence of Modi after a complete sexual intercourse Is done with a nubile virgin the hymen is usually found lacerated having one or more radiate tears, The edges of which are red swollen and painful and bleed on touching, If examined within a day or two days after the act.
10. Therefore the doctor did not commit any mistake in mentioning that hymen was fresh torn and red in the report dated 13.8.2004 because this examination was done within 35 hours of the alleged act of rape. It is further contended that in the present case the statement of the witnesses were examined in the trial court but on the date of argument the learned trial court passed the order dated 29.7.2005 in which charge was amended. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the evidence adduced in the court.
11. It is further contended that when the applicant and other co-accused Arun was released on short term bail, they were extending threat to the prosecutrix. Consequently, the family of the prosecutrix left Agra and settled at Aligarh where also they extending threats and they were compelling the prosecutrix for doing compromise otherwise again she would be raped and her father and brother would be murdered. Consequently, the prosecutrix committed suicide on 22.7.2005, thereafter the applicant and other co-accused, an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.7.2005 at Aligarh. It is further contended that the applicant and other two co-accused persons have committed heinous offence.
12. The applicant and other co-accused persons had made an attempt to commit the murder of the prosecutrix on 12.8.2004 by administrating poison through injunction and by throwing her from a 4 wheeler in front of Anjuman Bar, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any leniency. The applicant has misused short term bail granted by this court consequently, the prosecutrix committed suicide, in which applicant and other co-accused are named as accused under Section 306 I.P.C. therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
13. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant and gravity of the offence and subsequent conduct of the applicant when he was on short term bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
14. Accordingly this bail application is rejected.