Imran vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Imran is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Section 363, 376(2) (n) IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station G.R.P. District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On 03.03.2022, the victim was with her family at the railway station when she was lost. A search was made, but she could not be traced. Her father lodged a report. It is the prosecution case that it is the applicant who enticed the victim and took her Delhi. He had earlier threatened the victim and had physical relations with her and continued on multiple occasions.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim was found missing on 03.03.2022 and she was recovered on 05.03.2022, but during that period, the applicant did not establish any physical relations with her. On 05.03.2022, the victim was just short of 18 years of age. The medical report does not support the prosecution case. The statement of the victim is not credible; it is inconsistent; she did not raise any alarm, when she was taken to Delhi; the applicant is in custody since 06.03.2022. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.

Learned State counsel would submit that the applicant is married, whereas the victim is minor. Despite, the applicant established physical relations with the victim. He would submit that the supplementary medical report supports the prosecution case, as it suggests old positive sexual activities.

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 proceedings.

The victim has been examined as PW1 at trial. She has stated as to how she was raped by the applicant for the first time and thereafter, continued it on multiple occasions. She has also stated that the applicant is married having three children. Though, she would submit that the applicant was telling to her that the children are of his elder brother.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.