VIJAY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Applicant- Vijay seeks bail in Case Crime No.245/2014, under Sections 376/323/354-A IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Palimukimpur, Aligarh.

(3.) It is submitted that even though in respect of an occurrence dated 13.11.2014, an FIR came to be lodged by the brother of the victim on 25.11.2014, disclosing the name of Anju, Manish and Sachin, who are alleged to have assaulted, teased and committed acts of obscenity with the sister of the informant, yet the said FIR was not disclosing the name of the applicant. The submission further is that the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C reflected that she had confided with her younger sister-in-law on 24.11.2014 involving the commission of a sexual assault vis-a-vis the applicant, yet curiously the name of the applicant did not find mention in the FIR lodged on 25.11.2014. Learned counsel for the applicant on the strength of affidavit dated 18.1.2016 stated that the victim in her testimony, did not identify the applicant as the same Vijay, who is alleged to have sexually assaulted her. It is also submitted that according to prosecution victim was around 17 years, thus probabilising her age of consent, vis-a-vis the applicant, it is a case of false implication for ulterior motives, the applicant claims to have no previous criminal history, is in jail since 6.4.2015, trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, he be released on bail.