AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 263 wordsK.H.N. Kuranga, C.J.
Heard both the counsel.
This is an application u/s 439 Cr. P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail. Me is the accused in Crime No. 103 of 1999, registered in Ramanujganj Police Station for the offence punishable u/s 376 of I.P.C.
Name of prosecutrix is Muniya. Date of incident is 27.07.1999 at about 12.00 a.m. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix went to the house of the applicant to get wages. The applicant asked her to stay back and asked her to get a glass of water and thereafter committed rape on her forcibly.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix was recorded before the Court and she has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied the whole incident. He further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has also observed this in the order passed by him while rejecting the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State.
Having regard to this fact. I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to admit the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Magistrate, for his appearance before the said Court/trial Court, or as and where so directed.
Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order.