Mohd. Shareef @ Anni vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 164 of 2023, under Sections 323, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Pulbhatta, 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 07.08.2023, at 12:40 p.m. the applicant raped the victim, a young girl of 16 years. Meanwhile, the mother of the victim reached at her home. She tried to remove the applicant, but the applicant also did maar-peet with her.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the case is false. FIR is delayed. The informant has not supported the prosecution case at trial. There is only a statement of the victim, but in her cross examination, she admits that there was enmity between two families. Her statements are not corroborated in material particulars with regard to condition of clothes and injuries. It is argued that no injury was detected on the person of the victim and her clothes were not torn, as stated by her.

Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution during trial.

It is the 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.

It is true that FIR was lodged on 09.08.2023 with regard to the incident of 07.08.2023. Generally in such cases, delayed FIR per se does not doubt the credibility of the prosecution case, but it depends on the circumstance of each case. Perhaps this aspect would find determination at the trial. It is also true that the informant i.e. mother of the victim has not supported the prosecution case at the trial.

The victim has supported the prosecution case during her examination in trial. She is below 18 years of age. She has though stated that twice she had established physical relations with the applicant. Her statements were recorded during investigation before the Magistrate. She has proved it. According to her, in fact, she had severed all relations with the applicant when she came to know that the applicant was already married. She has stated that the applicant raped her on 07.08.2023.

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.