Atul @ Himanshu vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State and perused the record.

In brief, the prosecution case is that on 12.6.2010 Sant Mathura Das lodged a First Information Report at P.S. Jogiwala, Dehradun against the present applicant stating therein that he has two servants in his residence at Mohakhampur Dehradun, namely, Km. Bunnu and Sushil. On 8.6.2010, the complainant went to Noida along with his wife and daughter leaving both the servants at his residence in Dehradun. On 11.6.2010 in the evening Km. Bunnu made a phone call to him and told that their neighbour Atul @ Himanshu (present applicant) has committed rape with her. On the said information, the complainant reached Dehradun and, on being asked, victim Km. Bunnu disclosed that on 10.6.2010 at about 12 in the daytime, the applicant entered into the house and committed rape with her.

Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State while opposing the bail application of the applicant vehemently argued that in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., victim Km. Bunnu has specifically stated that the applicant entered into the house and committed rape with her forcibly. Further, according to medical report of the victim, there is evidence of sexual intercourse. Thus, the medical report also corroborates the version of FIR.

Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, I am of the view that a prima facie case under Sections 376, 452, 506 of IPC is made out against the applicant-accused and, therefore, no case for bail is made out.

The bail application is rejected accordingly.