Mange Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.332 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC, Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the parents of the victim had died 10 years prior to the date of incident. On 19.08.2023, at 11:00 PM, the applicant forcibly took the victim in a nearby field and raped her. The applicant happens to be the cousin of the victim.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that victim, as per the FIR, was minor, but, subsequently, it was revealed that she was major; there was a dispute between the applicant and the informant as to who gets appointment under the dying in harness rule, after the death of the maternal uncle of the parties.

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

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.

It is a case of sexual assault by a cousin on a young girl, although, according to the prosecution case, the victim was not minor on the date of incident, as revealed by PW3, who states that the date of birth of the victim is 20.07.2004, but the victim has categorically stated during trial that on the date of incident, at 11:00 PM, the applicant forcibly took her in a nearby field by slapping her and established physical relations with her.

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.