JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 32/221 of 2003( S. L. No. 872 of 2003) under Section 376 I.P.C., P.S. Inchauli, Meerut.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Satish at the police station Inchauli on 11.8.2003 at 1.00 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred ,on 9.8.2003. According to prosecution version the prosecutrix Km. Deepa aged about 11 years, the daughter of the first informant was enticed by the applicant at the pretext of providing some money, she was taken in a room of his house, where she was raped by the applicant. The prosecutrix made shrieks . On her shrieks the neighbourer Smt Raj Kumar came at the place of the occurrence and saw the prosecutrix in a unconscious condition and she was lying in a pool of blood. Then she called the mother of the prosecutrix who came there and saw the prosecutrix in the same condition. The accused ran away from the place of the occurrence. The prosecutrix was provided medical aid. Thereafter, the F.I.R. Was lodged the; first informant has explained the delay in lodging the F.I.R. by stating that the prosecutrix had become unconscious and she was raped. Therefore, she was provided proper medical aid when the condition of the prosecutrix became some normal then the F.I.R. was lodged. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix shows that the age of the girl was about 11 years. She was mentally retarded, hymen -was torn at multiple places, the bleeding was present from the edges. This injury was caused by some blunt object. It may be penis.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix is a mentally retarded girl. Even she was not in a position to disclose the name of the applicant. But when she was interrogated she gave reply by way of giving some indications showing the involvement of the applicant. On this indication it cannot be definitely said that the applicant had committed rape with the prosecutrix. It is further contended that the F.I.R. is delayed by two days and there is not plausible explanation in lodging the F.I.R. It is further contended that the applicant is minor. His date of birth is 1.8.1988. On the date of alleged occurrence he was aged about 15 years, therefore, he is entitled for-bail
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case the applicant has committed the rape with the age of 11 years old girl. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by medical evidence. The occurrence was witness by Smt Raj Kumar The hymen of the prosecutrix was torn and there was bleeding. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been properly explained because the first informant gave the period to provide proper medical aid to the prosecutrix whose condition was serious
6. It is further contended by the learned A.G.A. that the question of the age of the applicant, is to be considered by the juvenile court, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bait.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
8. According the bail application is rejected at this stage.