DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the certificate issued by the Registrar of the Municipal Corporation, N.I.T., Faridabad, the petitioner was born on 1.9.1979 and, therefore, was above 18 years of age on 8.6.1998 at the time of the alleged occurrence. He, therefore, contends that no offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. is also made out since the prosecutrix, who was allegedly taken on 8.6.1998, was with the petitioner till 15.6.1998 when they were arrested and produced before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if these allegations are true, the prosecutrix had not raised any protest and this shows that she was a consenting party. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner should be granted bail.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, points out that in para-4 of the petition, the petitioner himself has mentioned the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 12.7.1981, as per school record and if that was so, on the date of the alleged occurrence, she was below 17 years of age. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he was later on able to find out the correct date of birth of the prosecutrix by getting the Birth Register extract from the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. He also points out that as per allegations in the F.I.R., prosecutrix is the elder of the two daughters of the complainant and, therefore, this certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad relates only to the prosecutrix, though her name is not mentioned therein.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition disposed of. Petition allowed.