SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

AJIT SINGH
Harish – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Sushil Kumar Pandey.

JUDGMENT :

1. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 400 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, Gajraula, district-Pilibhit, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

4. The first information report was lodged by the informant against unknown person about disappearance of his daughter on 6.10.2021, alleging therein that on 9.10.2021 the daughter of the complainant had made a phone call to her elder sister and stated that she has solemnized marriage with someone.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per radiological examination the alleged victim is aged about 16-17 years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the victim being major cannot be ruled out. Further submission is that the alleged victim was a consenting party. She had left her parental home on her own sweet will and gone with the applic

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top