IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.940 OF 2024 (Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)

DISTRICT: UDHAM SINGH NAGAR Sunil Sindhi ......Applicant (In Jail)

VERSUS State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Presence :

Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, Learned Counsel for the Applicant Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Sunil Sindhi, seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 378 of 2023 registered under Sections 376, 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant has been in judicial custody since

01.07.2023.

2. The prosecution case, as delineated in the FIR dated 30.06.2023, alleges that the applicant, who is the real brother of the victim, a minor girl aged 13 years, committed rape upon her on multiple occasions. The FIR was lodged by the informant, who is also a relative of the victim, alleging that the applicant brought the victim to his rented accommodation on 21.06.2023 and committed rape upon her near Vibhara Farm Bridge, Bilaspur. It is further alleged that the applicant threatened the victim with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The next day, the applicant allegedly took the victim to a nearby forest and committed rape upon her thrice. The victim disclosed the incident to the informant on 29.06.2023, following which the FIR was registered.

3. The investigation culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet under Sections 323, 376, and 506 of the IPC and Section 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act on 26.08.2023. The applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected by the Learned FTC/Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur, vide order dated 12.01.2024, primarily on the grounds of the gravity of the offence, the minor age of the victim, and the medical evidence corroborating the allegations.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and for the State.

Perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a matrimonial dispute. It was contended that the applicant had solemnized a love marriage with the sister of the informant, which led to animosity between the families. The counsel highlighted alleged contradictions in the statements of the victim and other witnesses, particularly the delay in lodging the FIR, which was registered nine days after the alleged incident.

6. The counsel further argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were influenced by the applicant’s wife and were not voluntary. It was also pointed out that the medico-legal report (MLR) showed inconsistencies, such as the victim writing her name in Hindi in the MLR but in English in the site plan, casting doubt on the authenticity of the documents. Additionally, the counsel emphasized that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and has been in custody for a significant period, warranting his release on bail.

7. The learned State counsel opposed the bail application, asserting that the allegations against the applicant are grave and supported by cogent evidence. It was submitted that the victim, a minor, has consistently supported the prosecution’s case in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC. The State also relied on the MLR, which confirmed that the victim’s hymen was torn, corroborating the allegation of sexual assault.

8. The State further argued that the applicant, being the real brother of the victim, occupied a position of trust, and the breach of such trust aggravated the seriousness of the offence. It was also submitted that the trial has commenced, and releasing the applicant at this stage could lead to witness tampering or intimidation,