Nikhil Ramola vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Nikhil Ramola, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.570 of 2022, under Sections 376, 328 of IPC and u/s 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun, 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 age of the applicant is 21 years and there is a material and unexplained contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her statement recorded during the trial in the court; that, in her statement before the I.O. (page 16 and 17) she simply stated that she was coming from tuition and the applicant/accused met her and took her to his room and did wrong act with her; that, at place she stated that she knew applicant for months before incident, however, in another statement she stated that applicant/accused starting residing in Dev Rishi Enclave 3-4 days before the incident.

He would further submit that while recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate specifically asked her that what does she mean by wrong act. To this quarry the prosecutrix simply answered that she did not know what exactly the applicant/accused did with her as she was not in her senses; that, she further stated that she was having pain in abdomen, therefore, she thought that the applicant/accused has done some wrong act with her; that, in her statement she stated that after she regained her senses she went with the applicant/accused on his bike and had dinner in hotel and thereafter, the applicant/accused left her alone; that, as she did not know the way back to home, therefore, she was walking alone on road then when she asked a lady who made call to the police and took her to the police check post; that, thereafter, she narrated the entire incident to her parents.

Counsel for the applicant/accused would further submit that these two statements are at complete variance and she has not stated clearly that she was raped by the applicant/accused, even under Section 164 recorded before the Magistrate and the trial court. He would further submit that the prosecutrix stated in her statement before the trial court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that a lady took her to the police station whereas her father PW2 stated in trial court that on the date of incident the prosecutrix came at her home and on being asked she told the entire incident, whereupon he lodged the report in the Police Station. He would further submit that the applicant/accused is languishing in jail since 20.08.2022 and the trial is likely to take considerable time.

Per contra, Mr. V.S. Rathore A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail application on the premise that as per the ossification report the age of the victim comes up between 15 to 18 years and in her statement she has specifically stated that applicant/accused did wrong acts with her. However, he would admit that the prosecutrix has nowhere stated clearly and specifically that the applicant/accused committed rape upon her.

In the circumspection of the discussion above, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a case for bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹40,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.