Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 152 (UTT)

Sharafat Ali v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-04

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : Applicant Sharafat Ali is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.672 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the victim was staying in her house with her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law. On 08.10.2022, the mother-in-law had gone for her treatment to Delhi. On that date, taking advantage of the absence of the husband and other family members, the applicant, who happens to be the father-in-law of the victim, raped her. Subsequently, when the husband of the victim returned, she revealed this incident to him and others. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the story is unbelievable; the applicant is 66 years of age, whereas the victim is 21 years of age; the clothes of the victim have not been taken for forensic examination; such an incident is not possible; the FIR is delayed by 10 days, whereas, in between, the victim had immense opportunity to lodge the FIR; she had already consulted her family members also. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has 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. The victim has supported the prosecution case at trial; she tells that she had telephonically informed her husband and other family members. When her parents and other family members came to her, she lodged the FIR. The victim was medically examined. She also revealed the incident to the Doctor. PW2, the Doctor, has stated so. Other family members have also supported 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.