- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a prompt F.I.R. was lodged on 19.7.2012 at 22.30 hours by the complainant Chandrapal against the accused Veer Singh (non -applicant) with the allegation that his daughter aged about 14 years was taken by one Chandra Kanta inside the house of Ram Kunwar on 19.7.2012 at 5.00 P.M. wherein co -accused Veer Singh was already there while three other accused Kailash, Dalbir ( applicant) and Suraj Pal were standing outside the house and Veer Singh committed rape upon her inside the house. When the prosecutrix returned to her house she narrated the incident to the complainant and on the basis of information rendered by the victim the F.I.R. was lodged with the police station Bilaspur on 19.7.2012 at 22.30 hours.
(2.) THE prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and her age came up about 18 years. She was interrogated under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated to I.O. supporting the prosecution story embeded in the F.I.R. and did not assign any role of rape against the applicant but when she was examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. after three month of incident on dated 9.10.2012, she made the allegation of rape against the named accused Veer Singh and two others including the present accused Dalbir and Kailash. In this view of the matter learned counsel has submitted that applicant is innocent and has committed no offence. He is not named in the F.I.R. as rapist. His name came into light during the course of investigation through the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. after about 3 month of the incident and therefore, the possibility of his false implication in this case cannot be ruled out.
(3.) PER contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail on the ground that the name of the applicant Dalveer and two other persons have occurred in the F.I.R. apart from name of Veer Singh, but he has not been able to show any allegation of rape or any other offence made by the prosecutrix or informant against the applicant. Mere his standing along with other persons outside the house wherein the incident was committed by Veer Singh does not constitute any offence against accused who is not said to have done any overt act. In the facts and circumstances stated above the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of named accused Veer Singh and the applicant is entitled to bail.;