- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of ac cused Raj Kumar and affidavit filed by Gyan Prakash in reply to the show cause notice for cancellation of bail are taken on record.
(2.) HEARD Sri Manish Tiwary for the, applicant-accused Raj Kumar and accused Gyan Prakash, Sri K. N. Raha for the com plainant and the learned A. G. A. appear ing for the State. It is not disputed that co-accused Gyan Prakash was allowed bail by the order dated 20-11-98 on the ground that the medical report revealed that the prosecutrix was aged about 19 years. At the lime of hearing of bail application of co-accused Raj Kumar it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the initial medical examination the senior Radiologist reported the age of the girl to be about 19 years but subsequently on some agitation the matter for deter mination of age was referred to C. M. O. , who thereafter opined that the girl was about 13 or 14 years of age. It was con tended by the learned counsel for the com plainant that bail was allowed to co-accused Gyan Prakash on wrong assumption of fact that the girl was above 16 years of age. Accordingly this Court issued a notice to accused Gyan Prakash to show cause why his bail be not cancelled. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons that subsequently the matter was referred to State Medical Board, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and the Board examined Km. Poonam Arora, took X-ray and performed other tests and the Board came to the conclusion that the girl appeared to be 19 years of age. Copy of the said report has been annexed with the counter- affidavit. Sri Raha on the other hand argued that the girl has been ex amined by the Board in the year 1999 whereas FIR was lodged in May 1998 and as per the School leaving certificate she was below 16years of age. Since the real question regarding the age of the girl is yet to be determined finally On the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, therefore, it may not be ap propriate for this Court to give a finding either way on the said issue but in view of the fact that there is an opinion of the Medical Board which was headed by Director of Medical Health of the State Government, in favour of accused per sons and also having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to cancel bail granted to accused Gyan Prakash alias Babloo and the show cause notice issued to him is here by dis charged.
(3.) SINCE the case of accused-applicant Raj Kumar stands on same footing as that of Gyan Prakash alias Babloo, he is also admitted to bail and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25, 000/- and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. concerned in Case Crime No. 221/98 under Section 376/506, I. P. C. , PS. Sadar Ba/ar, district Shahjahanpur. It is further made clear that the bail granted to both the accused namely, Gyan Prakash alias Babloo and Raj Kumar shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) that they shall not terrorise wit nesses or tamper with the evidence; (2) that they shall not leave the ter ritorial jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the trial Court; and (3) that they shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of trial and if at any stage it is found by the trial Court thai the said accused persons are delaying the progress of the trial, it shall be open for the trial Court to cancel their bail.;