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
5 paragraphs · 198 wordsB.A. Zaidi, J.—The two bail applications are being disposed of by a common order because they relate to the same occurrence. The charge against the accused is under Sections 363, 366 and 376, Indian Penaf Code.
Heard Sri Mohit Singh and Sri N.I. Jafri, Advocates for the applicants; Tahir and Usman and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advocate for the State.
According to the prosecution version, the prosecutrix had gone to ease herself while she was called by the two wives of Tahir and was taken away by both the accused, who are maternal uncle and nephew.
According to the medical evidence, the prosecutrix was around 19 years and there was old tear of hymen. There are variations in the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and 164, Cr.P.C. It would not be advisable to make any comments thereon at this stage, lest it may have impact on the trial. All said and done, it does not seem appropriate to withhold bail.
The applicants be released on bail on their each furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30.000/ with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.