HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Anticipatory Bail Application No. 201 of 2025 Smt. Nisha Sharma ..….....Applicant Versus Secretary (Home), Govt. of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, AGA for the State. Mr. Shivam Rana, Advocate for the informant.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.24 of 2024, dated 17.08.2024, under Section 313 IPC, Police Station Badkot, District Uttarkashi.

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

3. According to the FIR, the co-accused forcibly established physical relations with the victim and, thereafter, he raped her on multiple occasions. The victim is 12-13 years of age. After six months, she felt pain in her stomach and she was taken to hospital. She then, revealed that it is the co-accused, who raped her. The victim was taken to hospital, where her foetus was aborted. The charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 313 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that during investigation, the arrest of the applicant was stayed by the court; the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail; the FIR is not named against the applicant; the victim visited the hospital along with her mother. It is submitted that the medical report does not suggest any rape having been committed on the victim. He would submit that since the incident is lodged in the month of August, 2024, till then, IPC had already come into force. The applicant could not have been charge-sheeted under Section 313 IPC. It is argued that the victim was already having bleeding when she was brought to the hospital. The applicant did not use any force for diagnose and treatment. The mother of the victim had consented to the treatment. The victim visited the hospital on multiple occasions.

5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicant had manipulated many documents; in the admission sheet, the age has deliberately been shown as 17 years while the victim was 13 years of age; her Aadhar Card was forged. He would submit that the mother of the victim is also in jail for more than six months now. It is submitted that the applicant had also taken adjournments in the trial court on the ground that the applicant has gone to Dehradun. Now, warrants and process under Sections 82/83 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have also been issued against the applicant.

6. Learned State counsel would submit that under the same offence, the applicant has once been convicted. The victim in her statement given to the Investigating Officer has specifically named the applicant that it is she, who facilitated the abortion.

7. At the time of considering an anticipatory bail application, various factors are to be considered, which include the gravity of offence, position of the offender, ramification or the consequence of the act on the society at large, etc. After coming into force of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, if offence under Section 313 IPC is recorded, it may not be a ground for bail.

8. Causing miscarriage per se is punishable under Section 312 IPC. Consent has no significance in it. The victim in her statement has categorically stated that she was taken to hospital, where a doctor has given her some medicines and her foetus was aborted.

It is the prosecution case that it is the applicant, who once had been convicted in under same category of offence in Case Crime No.11 of 2014 in Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi. The applicant has criminal antecedents, as well.

9. The statement of the victim recorded during investigation has tendered for perusal of the Court. The victim has categorical stated about the role of the doctor, who facilitated the miscarriage. Let the statement of the victim be taken on record.

10. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case in which the applicant may be given anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the ant