Mahesh Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

1.Applicant Mahesh Ram, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0023 of 2021, under Sections 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pati, District Champawat, has sought his release on bail.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to land dispute between the parties; that, the place of incident is also doubtful; and that, the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2021. He would further submit that three witnesses i.e. PW1 victim/prosecutrix, PW2 complainant/father of the prosecutrix and PW3 Doctor, who medically examined the victim after the alleged sexual assault, have been examined in the trial court. He would submit that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix as PW1 and the complainant/father of the prosecutrix as PW2, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. He would take the Court to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded in the trial court (Annexure-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit) and would submit that the prosecutrix stated that the applicant/accused met her at 9:00 p.m. and took her to a room where he committed sexual assault upon her but it is not stated by her that she raised any hue or cry when she was raped. Counsel for the applicant would also refer para 5 of the statement of PW2 Complainant/ father of the prosecutrix (Annexure-2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit) and would submit that he has stated that there is no house near the shop of Pani Ram and the incident took place in the house of the Bisan Chandra Joshi, and there are 7-8 houses near the house of Joshi Ji.

Per Contra, State Counsel opposed the bail application and would submit that on query by the Court the prosecutrix stated that the applicant/accused first took her to the back side of the shop of Pani Ram and thereafter took her in a room and she had told the same thing to the police. He would further submit that witness was cross examined on behalf of the applicant/accused, however, there is no suggestion about the contradictions, as alleged by the counsel, regarding the place of occurrence of the offence. In her statement the prosecutrix has specifically stated in para 3 that the applicant/ accused had physically assaulted her and committed sexual assault with her.

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.