Mahfooz vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.347 of 2022, under Sections 376(3), 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 3(a)/4(2) and Section 5(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Kotwali Jwalapur, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant raped the victim, a young girl of 15 years of age, and threatened her to life in case she reveals it to anyone. The applicant is the uncle of the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is quite delayed for more than 45 days; it is unbelievable because, according to the victim, she was raped in the night, when she was sleeping along with his brother, her father, the wife of the applicant and his children. It is argued that they are not witnesses to the incident, and there has been no injury on the person of the victim.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during trial; she admits that as per the victim, at the time of the incident, she was asleep with her family and with the wife and children on the applicant on the roof, when she was raped. Learned State Counsel also submits that the father of the victim, the wife of the applicant and his children, and the other family members, who were present at the time of incident, are not the witnesses.

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.

Admittedly, the FIR is quite delayed. Although, in such matters, delay in FIR, per se, makes no ground for bail. According to the FIR, the victim was raped in the midnight, when she was asleep with her family members on the roof, but no family member was made witness. It is also admitted that the victim did not receive any injury.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.