The court's decision was based on the finding that the allegations of continuous rape were clear cut and that there was no reason to believe in the false implication of the applicant.

1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Bhedjeet Chaudhary, who is involved in Case Crime No.281 of 2011 under Sections 323, 342, 354, 504, 506, 376, 120-I.P.C., P.S. Baldeo, District Mathura.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. I have also perused the written arguments submitted from the side of the applicant.

3. It has been submitted from the side of the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 4.1.2012, that he is innocent and has committed no offence. It has further been submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case because the writer of the FIR Km.Sonali Sisodia knitted a false story to get popularity. It has also been submitted that the entire case appears to be fake because the prosecutrix has levelled allegations of nasty nature against her parents also. It has further been submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. if the same are read with the FIR of the case. It has also been submitted that one Smt.Sharda who is real maternal aunt (Mausi) of the prosecutrix hatched a conspiracy against the parents of the prosecutrix and in this conspiracy the applicant has been involved unnecessarily. It has further been submitted that there is a property dispute between Smt.Sharda and the parents of the prosecutrix. It has also been submitted that the co-accused of this case Ram Niwas has been granted bail by the Sessions Judge concerned.

4. The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned AGA. He states that there is no reason as to why a young girl will stake her chastity and honour to falsely implicate her parents and a person against whom otherwise she has no grievance. It has further been submitted that there is no reason as to why Km.Sonali Sisodia who is stationed at Child Helpline, Agra will have any grievance or enmity against the applicant who is a resident of a village of Mathura. Learned AGA has further stated that Km.Sonali Sisodia is attached to Child Helpline, Agra and it is her part of duty to rescue such type of victims who have been sexually exploited with connivance of her family members. Learned AGA argued with vehemence that now a days there is no dearth of incidents in which the parents compel their young daughter to prostitution or sell her to a brothel. He has further stated that there is nothing on record which may indicate that Smt. Sharda Devi has got any grievance as against the applicant. He has also stated that she may have a grievance against the parents of the prosecutrix but definitely there is nothing on her part as against the applicant.

5. The allegations of continuous rape by the applicant against the prosecutrix are clear cut. Such incidents are not uncommon in our society. When the parents of the girl who have a social, moral and legal duty to protect their children specially the female ones from all odds of her life plan to sell her to a brothel or to compel her to adopt prostitution the only course open to the girl is to seek the help of others when she is virtually confined in her own house and tell her tale of woe to anyone to whom she meets at the earliest possible with the hope that such person will communicate her sad story to appropriate authority. In the instant case this has been done by the step sister of the prosecutrix. Km.Sonali Sisodia is attached to Child Helpline at Agra and there is nothing on record to indicate that she even knew the applicant since before. The allegation against her levelled by the applicant is totally flimsy. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the father of the co-accused Ram Niwas bequeathed his property to Smt. Sharda Devi. No such will has been filed. Smt.Sharda Devi might have a grievance against the parents of the prosecutrix but there can not be any such feeling as against the applicant.

6. I wonder how the learned Sessions Judge concerned granted b