In the Hon’ble Court of Session Judge Ludhiana

State

Vs

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shivtehil Prasad R/o of Village Kali Revta

P.S. Mauli Dist. Sant Kabir Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)

F.I.R. No. 33-14/2/2020

Under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC

Section 3,4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

P.S. City 1 Khanna

Note – This is a first bail application.

No such or similar bail application

is ever presented earlier or has been

decided by any court of Law.

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C.

Sir ,

The applicant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That the applicant is a law abiding and peace loving citizen and is married and has one

child and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and the challan has already been

presented in the Hon’ble Court.

2. That the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has never

committed any alleged offence. Moreover, from the perusal of the record, it reveals that

no case is made out against the applicant. Furthermore, the record also reveals that the

prosecutrix and her parents are also not sure about the age of the said prosecutrix and as

such the provisions of Section- 363, 366A IPC and Section 3,4 and 6 POCSO Act are not

attracted in the present case. Moreover, from the reliable sources the applicant got the

knowledge that the prosecutrix is major and the year of her birth is 2001.

3. That from the alleged medical record produced/attached with the challan in the present

case, the alleged pregnancy of the prosecutrix is of 20 weeks which is equivalent to

almost 5 months, and whereas as per the allegations alleged in the present case the

prosecutrix alleged that she has been taken by the applicant with him on 11/2/2020 which

is almost 4 months prior to the alleged arrest and date of medical examination of the

prosecutrix. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the said alleged pregnancy is caused

by the applicant. Moreover, the perusal of the medical examination report attached with

the challan, reveals no proof/suspicion of any alleged repeated sexual intercourse

between the applicant and prosecutrix. Furthermore, as per the medical examination

report, no marks of internal as well as external injury has been opined by the medical

examiner in his/her report on the private parts of the prosecutrix while examining the

prosecutrix. Contrary to that the medical report attached with challan, opined no evidence

of sexual abuse against the prosecutrix.

4. That even as per the alleged allegations in the present case, the prosecutrix stayed/lived

for 4 months with the applicant under threat and force but it is surprisingly shocking that

she neither raised any alarm nor tried to come out his company nor tried to came in

contact of her family/neighbors/any other person nor made any complaint to anyone.

Moreover, the applicant is a working person and he used to go for earning on his work

and the prosecutrix used to stay alone in his absence. It is highly improbable that if the

prosecutrix was illegally detained, she could have raised the alarm and complaint to the

persons living nearby/her parents or any other known person.

5. That the applicant is behind the bars under judicial custody from the last about 3 months

and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and furthermore, the statement of

prosecutrix and the witnesses has already been recorded to the investigating agencies

under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and there is no likelihood of winning over and tempering

with the prosecution evidence. Furthermore, the applicant undertakes not to leave India

without prior permission of the Hon’ble Court and also undertakes to abide the terms and

conditions imposed by the Hon’ble Court and as such no useful purpose will be served by

detaining the applicant in jail.

6. That the law of the land is to give appropriate time and resources to the applicant to

prepare out his case where the Supreme Court firmly favours the bail as a rule and Jail as

an exception by balancing the rights of the accused given under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India,1950.

7. That the applicant is ready to furnish bail/surety bond as required by the Hon’ble Court

and undertakes to appear on each and every consequent hearing of the present case in this

Hon’ble Court.
 It is therefore prayed that the applicant may be kindly

released/admitted to bail during trial.

Submitted by:

Dated: Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shivtehil of Village

Kali Revata P.S. Mauli Dist. Sant Kabir

Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)

Through Counsel:

A.K. Arora Adv.

Nikhil Arora Adv.

 In the Hon’ble Court of Session Judge Ludhiana

State

Vs

Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Shivtehil Prasad R/o of Village Kali Revta

P.S. Mauli Dist. Sant Kabir Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)

F.I.R. No. 33-14/2/2020

Under Section 363, 366A, 376 IPC

Section 3,4 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

P.S. City 1 Khanna

Note – This is a first bail application.

No such or similar bail application

is ever presented earlier or has been

decided by any court of Law.

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C.

 Affidavit

I, Harivansh Lal S/O Sh . Shivtehal Prasad R/O 492 , Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Khanna, Tehsil

Khanna, Dist. Ludhiana, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare on oath as under:

1. That the deponent is the real brother of the above said Rajesh Kumar who is in Judicial

Custody in the present case.

2. This is a first bail application. No such or similar bail application is ever presented earlier

or has been decided by any court of Law.

Deponent

Verification

I, the above named deponent further declare that the contents of the para no.1 and 2 of the

Affidavit are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been

concealed therein.

Verified at : Ludhiana Deponent

On: