Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State on the matter of bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is the case of the prosecution itself that it were Rita Devi and Arti Devi, who represented the victim lady that she will be having good earning if she does job of maid servant at Delhi. On such inducement, she came to the Railway Station where other co-convict, namely, Md.Talib Ansari accompanied her and then took her to Delhi from where she was taken to Saharanpur where they met with Bijay Singh, who has been alleged to have married that girl. On such accusation, the appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and that it has come during evidence that the girl was never a minor girl, rather she was aged about 21 years and was married from before and had even one child and therefore, any conviction recorded under Section 366 against the appellants is bad.

It was further pointed out that so far the conviction under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that is also bad on account of the fact that the appellant, Rita Devi @ Sunita Devi has never been alleged to have used force in kidnapping her nor there is evidence that they induced her to go Delhi deceitfully and that taking into account all these aspects of the matter, co- convict, namely, Md. Moin has been admitted to bail and therefore, these appellants deserve to be admitted on bail during the pendency of this appeal.