Pradeep vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 103 of 2022, under Section 376 (m) IPC and Section 5/6 (n) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the victim, a young girl of 13 years was staying with her aunt (mother’s sister), as her mother had died long back. The FIR records that two months prior to the lodging of the FIR, the applicant, who happened to be the father of the victim took her alongwith with him. The applicant on 19.03.2022, committed rape on the victim (his own daughter), due to which, she sustained mental and physical harassment. The victim ran from her house and informed the neighbours. Thereafter, applicant tendered apologies and asked the victim to join his company. He, thereafter, consumed poison so that he may not be implicated.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim wanted to live a free life. The applicant being father of her wanted to guide her properly, to which she was not agreeable. Therefore, she did not like the applicant. She has admitted in her evidence that she wanted the applicant to be imprisoned, which according to her she did. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that even informant has not supported the prosecution case. The applicant never consumed poison.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case at trial.

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

The victim is a young girl of 13 years of age. She has alleged that her father, the applicant committed rape on her. This is what she has stated during trial, as well. The informant has in the examination-in-chief has stated that the applicant would do galat-harkat and molest the victim. Although, in the cross-examination, she has stated otherwise and said that no rape was committed. But, as stated, the victim tells that she was raped by the applicant.

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.