Hinsh Kunwar Alias Harish vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Hinsh Kunwar alias Harish is in judicial custody in FIR No.271 of 2023, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, 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.

According to the FIR, on 14.09.2023, at about 10:30 in the morning, the applicant raped the victim in her house.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is delayed by 2 days; the prosecution story is not believable; if the child of the victim was sleeping in the same room, it is not possible that the applicant would force upon the victim. It is also argued that, as per the prosecution, the applicant tied the hands of the victim, and, thereafter, raped her, but, it is argued that the medical report does not find any injury on the hands of the victim. It is also argued that the story is also not believable because the victim happens to be the aunt of the applicant.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during investigation.

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.

During investigation, the victim and her husband have categorically stated that, in fact, the applicant was in good terms with them. At some places, he has been introduced as son-in-law of the victim and at other place, he has been introduced as the nephew of the victim. On the date of incident, earlier, the victim joined the company of the applicant so as to get some work done in the bank, and when he came back to the house of the victim, there, according to the FIR, suddenly the applicant raped her. When the husband of the victim came back, she revealed the incident to him. The witnesses have stated that, in fact, due to social stigma, they did not take prompt action, but, subsequently, the applicant, himself, tried to malign the character of the victim. Therefore, the FIR has been lodged.

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.