Inconsistent statements alone are not sufficient grounds for granting bail in a POCSO case, especially when the victim's statement before the court is categorical and the trial is underway.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Second Bail Application No. 98 of 2022

Sartaj

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief

Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Sartaj in judicial custody in Case

Crime No. 433 of 2020 under Section 354-B of IPC and

Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. He

has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

This is second bail application. The first bail

application has already been rejected on 05.08.2021.

4.

According to the FIR, on 20.12.2020, the victim,

a young girl of 9 years, had gone for her hair cut along with

her younger brother. The applicant was a barber. He

molested the victim. A report was lodged.

2

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit

that the trial is almost over; all the witnesses of fact have

already been examined; there are no chances of tempering

with the evidence. Learned counsel would refer to the

statements of PW 1, the victim, and her mother to argue

that there has been inconsistency in their statements,

which entitles the applicant to bail. He would refer to the

statement of the mother of the victim, where she says that

the victim was not medically examined and also referred to

the statement of the victim to argue that in the court the

victim tells the date of incident, whereas it is argued that in

her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim did not reveal the date

of incident. It is also argued that in her cross-examination,

the victim could not reveal as to how much money was

given by her father to her on the date of incident while

sending her for hair cut. It is argued that all it reveals that

the victim is tutored.

6.

Learned State Counsel would submit that there

is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

7

It is true that witnesses have been examined post

rejection of the first bail application on 05.08.2021. The

trial is under way. Much of the discussion is not expected

of. In fact, scrutiny of the statements of the victim and other

3

witnesses is not expected at this stage. Fact remains that in

her examination before the court, the victim has given

categorical statement as to what had happened on the date

of incident. The mother of the victim and other witnesses

have also been examined.

8.

Having considered, this Court finds no new

ground or any changed circumstances, which may entitle

the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the 2nd Bail Application

deserves to be rejected.

9.

The second bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

03.01.2023

Avneet/