Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Padam Thapa - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1749 of 2021
Decided On : 22-12-2022
Bail Application - Murder and Rape - The court rejected the bail application after considering circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage and the recovery of the victim's dead body at the instance of the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought release on bail in a case involving charges of murder, rape, and other offenses. The victim, a young girl, went missing and was later found dead. The applicant was spotted with the victim on CCTV footage and admitted to the crime during police interrogation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the applicant's presence with the victim and the recovery of the victim's dead body at the applicant's instance, indicated a strong case against the applicant. Therefore, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for bail and rejected the bail application.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the circumstantial evidence linking him to the murder and rape of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the consideration of circumstantial evidence, including the CCTV footage and the recovery of the victim's dead body at the applicant's instance, which indicated a strong case against the applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected by the court.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Padam Thapa is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 0199 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 364, 376 (AB), 376 (BD)/34 of IPC & Section 5 (e)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Deceased a young girl of 10 years, left her house on 05.08.2019. Thereafter, she was not traceable. Therefore, a report was lodged by her father. During investigation, the applicant was spotted with the victim. CCTV footages upto late evening at 8:40 p.m. were taken into possession by the police. When interrogated, it is the case of the police that applicant admitted that he along with co-accused raped the victim and killed her. It is further case of the prosecution that the dead body of the victim was recovered at the instance of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no eye witness; there is no direct evidence and based on the circumstantial evidence, applicant has been arrested.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant has been spotted with the victim till late in the evening of 05.08.2019 last time and thereafter, her dead body was recovered on 07.08.2019 at the instance of the applicant.
6. This is not a case of direct evidence but there have been certificate of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with regard to the CCTV footages. Many questions would require deliberation at the trial as to where the victim had gone after she was spotted with the applicant at about 8:40 p.m. on 05.08.2019. The month of August is definitely dark. What was the victim doing with the applicant then? It is stated by the prosecution that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the applicant.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for bail and the bail application deserves to be rejected.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of circumstantial evidence and the seriousness of the charges, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
A minor's consent is immaterial in sexual offences; the victim's credible testimony establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In bail proceedings, the presence of multiple eyewitnesses and corroborative video evidence outweighed concerns regarding delay in lodging the FIR, justifying the court's decision to reject bail.
Mere recovery of minor rape-murder victim's body from accused's locked room, without proof of last seen together, accused's presence or forensic link, fails to form complete circumstantial chain for ....
Point of law: The provision of Section 29 provides for a presumption as to certain offences. It provides that where a person is prosecuted for violating any of the provisions under Section 3, 5, 7 an....
The seriousness of sexual offence charges and the victim's statement are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
