Himanshu Kamley vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Delay in fling supplementary affidavit is condoned. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.4 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.500 of 2022 (Special Sessions Trial No.164 of 2022), under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 5(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 15.09.2022, the health of the victim, a young girl of 15 years, deteriorated. When she was examined, it was found that she was pregnant by 8 weeks. On questioning, she revealed that it is the applicant, who had molested her in the past, and one day, when there was no one in the house, he raped her.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the foetus of the victim was sent for DNA examination, but it has not confirmed the involvement of the applicant; the FIR is delayed.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim, throughout investigation, has stated that it is the applicant who raped her and would molest her. She has stated so during her examination under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at the time of medical and in the court also, she has supported the prosecution case. Learned State Counsel would submit that the DNA report does not say that the applicant is not the biological father of the foetus.

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 victim was a young girl of 15 years of age, whereas, the applicant’s age is 26 years. The victim has throughout stated that the applicant had molested her in the past and one day, he raped her. She has been consistent throughout. The DNA report does not negate the involvement of the applicant. In fact, it does not give any opinion on that aspect.

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.