Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 132 (UTT)

Abhishek v. State Of Uttarakhand

2024-02-27

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
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:- (i) The victim is a young girl of 7 years of age. There are chances of her tutoring. (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. 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.