Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for applicant, 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 applicant, accusation made coupled with the fact that prosecutrix is a small child aged about 3 years and 5 months whose modesty has been dislodged, the material evidence clearly supports the occular version of the occurrence, the prosecutrix in her statements under section 161/164 Cr.P.c. has remained clear, categorical and consistent, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecutrix, no false or malicious prosecution of applicant can be inferred either, the reliance placed upon the CCTV footage of the occurrence is misconceived as there is no certificate regarding the same in terms of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, therefore, irrespective of the submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel in support of this application for bail, this court does not find any sufficient or good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
