Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Babaji vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2023 cites

Phool Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2021

Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicants, accusation made coupled with the fact that statement of the prosecutrix as recorded under section 161/164 Cr.P.C. disclose a different story from one mentioned in the F.I.R. It is true that F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia of the prosecution case but it must reflect the basic prosecution case. Admittedly, the F.I.R. was lodged upon the disclosure made by prosecutrix to her mother. With regard to credibility of the statements of the prosecutrix as recorded under section 161/164 Cr.P.C. the inherent contradiction in the statement of prosecutrix in her subsequent Statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., which remains unexplained up to this stage, by reason of the judgement of Supreme Court in Phool Singh (Supra) the statements of the prosecutrix are not worthy of credit, police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted against applicants, as such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicants stands crystalized, inspite of above, learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicants during pendency of trial, the period of incarceration undergone, the clean antecedents of applicants but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 154 - M R Shah - Full Document
1