JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Ashutosh Srivastava learned counsel for the complainant.
2. From the perusal of the recored it reveals that in the present case the applicant is Devar of the prosecutrix. The F.I.R. was lodged by the prosecutrix Smt Shashi Pal against the applicant and co-accused Rakesh Pal (husband), Awadh Pal father-in-law and Smt Rani Pal mother-in-law on 12.5.2005 under Section 498A, 323, 506, 376 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Crime No. 139 of 2005 District Allahabd. According to prosecution version the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized with the co-accused Rakesh Pal on 13.2.2001. Soon after the marriage the applicant and other co-accused persons started beating the prosecutrix to fulfill the demand of colour T.V., refrigerator and Rs. 50,000/-. In the mean time the prosecutrix became pregnant and she gave birth a female child who died after six days of her birth because the prosecutrix was subjected to cruelty before her birth. The prosecutrix was sent to her parents house. Thereafter a panchayat was arranged. Again she came to the house of her in-laws where she was again subjected to cruelty. She stayed at the house of her in-laws for about 4 and 5 months. During that period she became pregnant again. Again- the prosecutrix was beaten and she was sent to her parent's house where she gave birth a female child. At the time of lodging the F.I.R. she was, aged about 18 months. The applicant and other co-accused persons constantly developing pressure to fulfill the demand of dowry, but in a compromise an assurance was given that the prosecutrix would not be subjected to cruelty. Again she came to the house of her in-laws. After ten days of her arrival she was badly beaten on 20,3.2005 and she was confined in a room where the applicant was permitted by her mother co-accused Ranipal to commit raped with the deceased. The applicant committed rape by putting off her cloths. Then she became pregnant. After one and half month of her pregnancy she was beaten and she was pressurized for abortion. At the gun point signature of the prosecutrix was taken at the blank papers and thereafter, she was expelled from the house on 22.4.2005 by giving warning that without T.V., refrigerator, and Rs. 5000/- she would not be allowed to come back. The statement was given by the prosecutrix before learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Medical examination report dated 16.5.2005 shows that she was having pregnancy of 8 to 10 weeks.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the relation between the husband and wife was not cordial, therefore, the co-accused Rakesh Pal the husband of the prosecutrix filed civil suit No. 150 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the prosecutrix in the court of learned Civil Judge, Allahabad on 7.3.2005. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and the other co-accused persons entered into compromise on 8.3.2005, so there was no occasion for the applicant and other co-accused persons to commit the alleged offence and the present F.I.R. has been lodged for the purpose of harassment of the applicant and other co-accused. It is further contended that the F.I.R. is delayed by 20 days without any plausible explanation and the prosecutrix was not immediately medically examined. There is delay in medical examination of the prosecutrix also and no injury was seen on her person.
4. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that there was constant demand of dowry. The prosecutrix was subjected to cruelty and the rape was committed with her by the applicant and she expelled from the house. The prosecution story fully corroborated by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. The detention of the applicant in jail is very short. In such circumstances the applicant dose not deserve for 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 learned counsel for the complainant 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.