Afjal Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Afjal Ali is in judicial custody in FIR No.295 of 2023, under Sections 344, 346, 366, 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the instant case, there are two victims, who are children. They were working in a company. The applicant used to visit their mother at some other place. They had acquaintance for that reason. According to the FIR, the applicant, under the assurance of providing the victims a job at Bareilly, called them on 19.09.2023, and took both the victims at various places and raped them repeatedly and confined them. Somehow, on 10.10.2023, the victims could get themselves released from the clutches of the applicant, when they narrated the story to their family members. They were medically examined also. During medical examination also, they revealed the story of trauma and horror, which they had undergone.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the statements of the victims are not reliable, because, according to the FIR, it is the applicant, who had called the victims, whereas in the statements, one of the victims has stated that they had called the applicant. It is also argued that there is no witness to the incident. The medical does not support the prosecution case.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victims have supported the prosecution case.

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.

It is a story of two minor girls, who were working in a company, but it is alleged that the applicant, under the allurement of providing them job, took them with him, confined them and raped both these sisters repeatedly from 19.09.2023, according to the FIR, till 10.10.2023, they were confined, when they could get themselves released. Both these victims have been examined in the court. Their examination-in-chief has been recorded but they have not been cross-examined and adjournment has been sought by the defence. During medical examination, both these victims have stated the story as to how and in what manner they were taken away.

Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.