It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation in the FIR, which has been lodged on 12.12.2018, the applicant along with co-accused Manoj used to tease the daughters of the informant whenever they went to school. They also used to pass unparliamentary remarks while teasing them. In their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no allegation regarding girls, namely, Pooja and Neelam being sexually assaulted. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. victim Neelam, who is about 24 years, has repeated the version of FIR and there are allegations of trying to outrage the modesty of the victim Neelam whereas in the statement of victim Pooja under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that she is 19 years old and nearly five months ago the accused persons took her to fields and sexually assaulted her. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no whisper about this incident in the FIR and only bald and vague allegations have been made in the FIR which are not corroborated by the medical evidence. The FIR was initially lodged under Sections 294 and 354 I.P.C. in which the applicant has already been bailed out, but later on the charge sheet has come under Section 376-D I.P.C. for which the present bail application has been moved. There is no evidence to show that any such incident took place with these two girls. Seeing the variations in the version of FIR and statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C it appears that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is next contended that the applicant has no criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 21.08.2019. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
