Gulab Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Gulab Singh, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.157 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 328, 363, 366, 376(3), 506 of IPC and Section 3(a)/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that, Dr. Sushma Gupta who had medically examined the prosecutrix, was examined in the trial court as PW6 and has deposed that on the basis of pathology report she had prepared the supplementary medical report and as per the opinion of Pathologist there was no dead or live spermatozoa found on vaginal swabs. She would further submit that the applicant/accused in languishing in jail since 27.06.2022; that, all the important witnesses in the present case i.e. prosecutrix and her relatives have been examined in the trial court; and that, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses.

Mr. V.S. Rathore, AGA for the State vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the prosecutrix was examined as PW1 and she has supported the case of the prosecution and has specifically narrated the facts of the case and how the applicant/accused has committed heinous crime upon her body and soul. He would further submit that in the cross examination also it has been established that when she tried to raise alarm then the applicant/accused threatened her and he was holding her from one hand and with another hand he was holding a knife. He would further submit that PW2, father of prosecutrix, PW3 and PW4, uncles of the prosecutrix have supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that even in the medical evidence as testified by PW6 Dr. Sushma Gupta it has come on record that there was an injury of abrasion 5cm x 0.5cm at back side of the neck of the prosecutrix.

In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.