Nadeem vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Nadeem, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.105 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 120-B of IPC and u/s 16/17 of POCSO Act, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

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

Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix was examined in the trial court as PW1 wherein she has denied all the allegations levelled against the applicant/accused; that the medical report of the prosecutrix also does not support the commission of rape upon the prosecutrix; that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

On query of the Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/accused is not able to apprise the Court as regard to the status of other co-accused persons.

Per contra, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution in cross-examination. She would refer to the statement of the prosecutrix (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) and would submit that in the examination-in-chief the prosecutrix did not say anything about the applicant/accused, however, in the cross-examination, which was recorded after two days, the prosecutrix has unequivocally and specifically stated that the applicant/accused had taken her along with other co-accused, namely, Kadir, Ishrar and Ehshan in a house constructed in an agricultural field and committed rape upon her repeatedly on many occasions; prosecutrix further stated that all the four accused had compelled her to change her religion. Learned A.G.A. would further submit while recording the cross-examination of the prosecutrix there was an observation of the Trial Court also that the prosecutrix was very much frightened and was speaking in a very low volume and was repeatedly looking left right as if she is under some fear.

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.