Bablu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Bablu is in judicial custody in FIR No.0085 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(2), 376(f) IPC and Sections 10, 5(n), 6, 7, 8, and 9(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the informant has 3 children from her first marriage. Her husband had died four years prior to lodging of the FIR. Thereafter, the informant came in touch with the applicant. The applicant took the informant along with her children to Punjab, where he did galat kaam with the elder daughter of the informant and again in Haridwar, he tried to do so, when the FIR was lodged.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the informant were never married; there is no record of the marriage; there is no age determination of the victim; the FIR is delayed by 3 days; in the FIR, the time, place and date of the alleged incident is not recorded.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim and her mother, all have supported the prosecution case at trial; the victim was 13 years of age at the time of incident; the medical report has also confirmed that the victim was a child on the date of incident.

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.

The informant has stated that after the death of her husband, she along with her 3 children was staying with the applicant. When they were in Punjab, according to the prosecution case, the applicant raped the victim, a young girl of 13 years, and continued doing so. When they returned to Haridwar, the applicant again tried to do so. It is thereafter, the FIR has been lodged. The victim, her mother, and the doctor, all have supported the prosecution case.

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.