RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.R. Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Ramesh Sinha, learned Counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) THE applicants has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2005 under Sections 376 and 342 IPC P.S. Gulawathi District Bulandshahr. From the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged by Jabbar at P.S. Gulawathi on 14 -5 -2005 at 3.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12 -5 -2005 at about 1.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants and 2 other co -accused persons. According to the F.I.R. version, belongs to a poor family. He had gone to Delhi to earn his livelihood. At their house, his wife and children were present. On 12 -5 -2005, when the wife of the first informant had gone to cut the gross, the prosecutrix Km. Rajiya, daughter of the first informant was called by co -accused Kali alias Nasim, who is the neighbourer of the first informant at the pretext of some work. The prosecutrix went on his company to the house of Kali alias Nasim, where she was pushed into the room and that room was closed from the outside and inside of that room Kalu alias Firoz and the applicants Fahim Uddin were already present, who committed the rape with the deceased by extending threat on her at the pistol point and the threat was extended that in case she disclosed the fact to her family members, she will be killed. After committing the rape, the accused persons ran away, then the prosecutrix made a hue and cry then the witnesses Akbar and Mohd. Iqlakh chased the accused persons but they could not be apprehended. It is contended that the daughter of the co -accused Kali alias Nasim has fled away from his house and due to that enmity, he committed the alleged offence in a revenge. The applicant was apprehended on 15 -5 -2005 and he was handed over to the police. From the medical examination report, it appears that the prosecutrix Km. Raziya was medically examined on 14 -5 -2005 at about 7.30 p.m. No mark of external injury was seen on her person and no injury was seen on her private part.
(3.) ACCORDING to the X -ray report, her age was found above 18 years and no spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear. According to the supplementary medical examination report, no evidence of physical contact was found and no opinion about rape could be given. It is contended by the Counsel for the applicant that no rape was committed with the prosecutrix and no injury was seen on her person and she was above 18 years of age and no spermatozoa was found in vaginal smear and the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity.;