IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Abhishek - Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 174 Of 2023
Decided On : 27-02-2024
BAIL - RAPE - The court analyzed the bail application of the applicant accused of raping a 7-year-old girl. The court highlighted the seriousness of the charges under IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence. The court found that the victim's testimony and medical examination supported the prosecution's case, leading to the rejection of the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Abhishek, is in judicial custody for allegedly raping a 7-year-old girl on 26.11.2021. He claims to have been falsely implicated, providing an attendance register as evidence of his whereabouts during the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the victim's testimony and the medical examination supported the prosecution's case. The applicant's alibi was not sufficiently corroborated, and the court found no compelling reason to grant bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious charges against him and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases involving serious offenses such as rape, especially against minors, the evidence must be carefully considered, and the presumption of innocence does not outweigh the gravity of the charges.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant Abhishek is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.1063 of 2021, under Sections 376 AB, 506 IPC and Section 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 26.11.2021, at 1:30 PM, the applicant dragged a young girl of 7 years of age and raped her.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated; on the date when the incident happened, the applicant was working in his establishment; he has got the attendance register of the establishment, which shows that at 9:00 AM, he entered into the premises and left it at 5:00 in the evening. It is argued that this fact has not been controverted by the State.
5. Learned Senior Counsel would also make the following submissions:-
(ii) The medical examination does not support the prosecution case. Had the victim been dragged in the sugarcane field and raped, as stated by the prosecution, there has to be some injuries on her person or private parts, which is missing.
(iii) The victim tells that she was along with her grandmother in the field when she was raped, but the grand mother did not raise any alarm.
(iv) The Investigating Officer did not medically examine the accused, which is mandatory under law.
(v) The alleged place of occurrence is close to a public road. The incident, in the manner, as stated, is not possible.
(vi) The applicant is in custody since 02.12.2021.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that 5 witnesses have already been examined in the trial; the victim is a young girl of 8 years of age; she has supported the prosecution case and PW5, the doctor, has also supported the prosecution case at trial.
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. On 26.12.2021, at 1:30 PM, it is stated that the victim was raped. The victim was examined at 8:30 PM on the same date. The doctor has stated what was told by the victim to her. According to PW5, the doctor, the victim told her that on the date of incident, the applicant raped her, beaten her up. The victim has been examined as PW1. She has stated as to what had happened to her. She has supported the prosecution case. The medical examination report also supports the prosecution case.
8. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
In cases of serious offenses against minors, the court must prioritize the protection of victims and the integrity of the judicial process over the rights of the accused when considering bail applica....
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.
The seriousness of sexual offence charges and the victim's statement are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The court determines that the gravity of the allegations warranted denial of bail due to the serious nature of the offences involved.
The court grants bail in POCSO-related matters when the investigation is substantially complete, detention is no longer deemed necessary, and strict conditions are set to ensure the accused does not ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.