AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Pathak, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that perusal of statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly indicates that she was a consenting party; she was about 17 years of age at the time of incident; She had accompanied the Petitioner on his scooter on 22nd November, 2010 and stayed with him for about three days without raising any alarm; She did not make any effort to escape.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail on the ground that prosecutrix was not a consenting party; she was a minor; in her statement u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, she has categorically stated that Petitioner had sexual intercourse with her forcibly.
I have perused the statement u/s 164 Code of Criminal Procedure of the prosecutrix recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, Petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Application is disposed of in the above terms.