IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony can significantly impact the decision to grant bail, especially in cases involving serious charges under the IPC and POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :

Applicants Vivek and Anurag @ Vasu are in judicial custody in Case Crime No.450 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376-D, 328 and 506 IPC and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. They have sought their release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 08.10.2023, at 6:30 PM, the applicants took the victim from her house by concealing their identity and raped her collectively. The victim was located by police. Thereafter, the victim revealed the incident to her father.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the entire case is false; the statement of the victim is not reliable; according to the FIR, the victim was taken from her house, whereas, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”), tells that after a quarrel in the house, she was proceeding towards Barrage, when she was forcibly taken by the applicants. He would also submit that the victim has already been examined at the trial, and her statement reveals that she was known to the applicants. In Para 11 and 12, she has categorically stated that she, on her own, visited the applicants at various places in the crowded areas and bus station, where she was left by the applicants, but she waited for them to come. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case at trial. Although, he admits that the victim had passed through various places, and in Para 11 and 12 of her statement, recorded during trial, she has stated that at bus station, she was all alone, but she waited for the applicants to return.

6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

7. In the FIR, the applicants are named, and according to the victim, she was taken from her house. In her statement under Section 164 of the Code, the victim tells that she was forcibly taken from a public road, when the applicants introduced themselves to her. In her medical examination, which was conducted on 09.10.2023, at 6:15 PM, she did not name the applicants and told that unknown persons took her. Prior to the medical examination of the victim, the FIR had already been lodged.

8. If the victim did not know the name of the applicants when she was medically examine, how could she name the applicants in the FIR The Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny, at this stage, of the statement of the victim recorded during trial.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.