Sajid vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Mahra, J

Applicant Sajid, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 364 of 2024, under Sections 313, 452, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC & Sections 3A/4, 51/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC & ST act, 1989, registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

As per the prosecution story, on 09.04.2024, the First Information Report was lodged by the first informant/complainant, alleging therein that approximately four months prior, her daughter was chased by the present applicant, who expressed a desire to speak with her; that, when the daughter resisted, the applicant threatened her and committed rape upon her, resulting in her pregnancy. Subsequently, he administered pregnancy termination pills to her.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case; that the victim herself has not supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. There are many contradictions, and in her cross-examination she has categorically stated that she did not mention the time, date, or place where the applicant had allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the story narrated in the FIR, even if taken at face value, is not reliable. As per the FIR, the last alleged sexual assault took place in December 2023, and in January 2024 the applicant allegedly gave her some pills. Thereafter, her mother took her to the hospital where, upon conducting an ultrasound, it was found that she was pregnant. The statement of the doctor, when recorded, revealed that the abortion was conducted on 10.05.2024.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the ultrasound report, the prosecutrix’s pregnancy was at a borderline stage, which renders the prosecution story false and fabricated; that, the prosecutrix stated in her statement that no physical relationship took place after December 2023; however, the ultrasound was conducted on 10.04.2024. Thus, the alleged incident does not match the medical evidence.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.

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 this is a fit case for bail.

The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to 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.