Rajat Rajput vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No. 352 of 2018, registered with Police Station

Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860.

An First Information Report was lodged by the victim on 15.11.2018 at 9:15 p.m. with the allegations that she was aged about 20 years and resided

with her brother and sister-in-law at Haldu khata Malla. On 14.11.2018 at about 6:00 p.m., she had gone to purchase household items in the shop of

one Dhyani ji. On this way, the house of Subash was situated. Subash and his wife were not present in their house. Their son Rajat Rajput, (present

applicant), aged about 20-21 years, was alone in the house. He dragged the victim into his house and raped her.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is facing trial, is an innocent person; the story of the victim is unbelievable; the

victim was major and it was not possible for single boy, aged about 20 years, to win over physically without sustaining any kind of external injuries on

her body; it created doubt over the entire story of the victim; in the light of the supplementary medical report of the victim, spermatozoa was not

found; in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 25.02.2019, semen and blood could not be detected; the victim and the applicant, both

are neighbors and well known to each other; on the day of alleged incident, the victim was elsewhere; the applicant had seen the victim with her lover

Shanu, who were in wrong postition; according to the medical report, no external injury was found on the body of the victim except the teeth mark in

her hand; the victim had occasion to make hue and cry, but she had not made any noise at the time of the alleged incident; in trial, there are many

contradictions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, and one witness, namely, Dinesh Dhyani, DW-1 did not support the prosecution story that

on the day of this incident, his mill was running.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application and submits that the victim has supported the

prosecution story in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in trial.

At the stage of considering the bail application, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to

be undertaken. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim had not made any noise in spite of she had occasion. In the statement under Section

164 of Cr.P.C. and in the trial, the victim had given statement/evidence that she shouted but no one noticed because a mill was running in the shop of

Dhyani Ji.

No presumption can be made that penetration of private part of the male in the private part of a rape victim must necessarily lead to the discovery

of semen or spermatozoa. Otherwise also there may be various other factors which may negative, the presence of semen or spermatozoa such as

faulty taking of the smear, its preservation, quality of semen etc. The absence of semen or spermatozoa prima facie could not be allowed to tell

against the version of prosecutirx.

In the case of State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the matters to

be considered in an application for bail, are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the

offence,

(ii) nature and gravity of charge, (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released

on bail, (v) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) reasonable

apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Therefore, while dealing with an application for bail, there is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie considering why bail is being

granted particularly where an accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order dehors reasons suffers from non-application of

mind as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others, (2002)3 SCC 598.

Sexual offence has serious physical and psycho - social consequences which adversely affect the health and overall well-being of a woman.

Sexual offence is most heinous offence causing enormous emotional and physical harm that can lost throughout victim’s lifetime.

From the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation, and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, it prima facie appears that the applicant was involved in this crime. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the

case, there is no good ground to release the accused-applicant involved in this heinous crime on bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly.