Praveen @ Praveendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Heard Ms. Anjali Bahuguna, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.

Applicant who is in judicial custody, in connection with Case Crime No.171 of 2018, under Section 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, Dehradun.

In the instant case, FIR was lodged on 30.08.2018 at 11:35 p.m. at Police Station Prem Nagar under Sections 376, 506 IPC. According to it, the prosecutrix had acquaintance with the applicant. They came into contact through some common friend. On 26.08.2018 the applicant telephoned the prosecutrix asking her to tie rakhi on his wrist. The prosecutrix and the applicant met at one Prem Nagar Chauraha at 09:00 p.m. On that day, when the prosecutrix told the applicant that she could tie rakhi there only, but at that the applicant asked the prosecutrix to accompany her to his house so that she can also met the parents of the applicant. According to the FIR instead of taking the prosecutrix to his house, the applicant took the prosecutrix to his friend's house where he spiked her tea and when she was semi conscious, she was raped by the applicant and, thereafter, threatened her, as well.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that prosecutrix is major and a student of nursing. FIR is delayed by four days and there is no explanation to it and most important according to the FIR place of occurrence is a friend's house of the applicant but according to the investigation the place of occurrence is a hotel in the first floor. Reference has also been made to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Code in that she has also stated that on 5th September 2018 the applicant visited the prosecutrix at her hostel and threatened her. At this, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that applicant is in custody since 2nd September 2018, therefore, he could not have gone to threaten the prosecutrix on 5th September 2018 and it belies the statement of the prosecutrix.

Learned State counsel admitted that in investigation it has been found that place of occurrence is a hotel and its owner has stated about it.

Delay in the case of rape may not be very serious at the stage of bail. It is a matter, which can be seen at the stage of trial. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a student of nursing of 20 years of age. In the FIR she categorically states that the applicant took her in his friend's house. Site plan, which is annexure 3 to the bail application, discloses that investigating officer found that the place of occurrence is a hotel at first floor. In her statement under section 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix states that she was raped by the applicant in his friend's room and in her statement under Section 161 of the Code the prosecutrix states that instead of taking her at her own house the applicant took the prosecutrix to some other place, where he raped her.

The prosecutrix had acquaintance with the applicant. The applicant was arrested on 2nd September, 2018. Where was the place of occurrence? Was it a friend's house of the applicant or it was a hotel? Both are clearly distinguishable. Moreover the hotel, as shown in site plan has a lobby and place of incident is stated to be a room on the first floor. During trial these questions will definitely be deliberated.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant namely, Praveen @ Praveendra Singh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be taken into consideration at all in any other proceedings.