Vikas vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Vikas is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.654 of 2020, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 06.09.2020 morning at about 6:30, the applicant on gun point raped the victim in a sugar cane field. He muffled her mouth with scarf, which she had. The FIR records that one more person had witness the incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this is a false case. The applicant had earlier given a report to police which was inquired into by DW1, who has been examined in a case. She found that the offence was not committed. The applicant and victim were in relationship. When the applicant married, the victim got annoyed with him and she filed the FIR.

It is argued that the earlier report was concealed by the victim, while lodging the instant FIR. Reference has been made to the statement of DW1 recorded in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2021.

Learned counsel for the parties have informed that based on the FIR, Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2021, State vs. Vikas, is pending in the Court of FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in which witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for arguments.

Learned counsel for the informant would submit that on the date of incident itself, the victim had gone to the police station, but her report was not lodged. Police had inquired and closed the matter on 10.10.2020. Thereafter, the victim approached the higher officers and then instant FIR was lodged.

Learned State Counsel would submit that on the earlier report of the victim, the police had once inquired and had found that no offence was made out, but on a subsequent report, the case has been lodged.

Since trial is at the final stage, the Court would restrain to make any observation with regard to any evidence. It is admitted on behalf of the victim also that on the date of incident itself, she had given a report to the police, which was not lodged as an FIR. DW1 has been examined in the trial. She has stated to have received a complaint on 08.09.2020. She inquired and found that the applicant and victim were in relationship. Since the applicant had married, the victim was annoyed. Therefore, according to DW1, the victim had lodged report.

Now, the question is, which could be termed as a FIR? The instant FIR or the report which the informant gave initially to the police. Fact remains that in the instant FIR, the victim did not make any mention of the earlier report, which she had given to the police. Victim has already been examined. It is true that she has corroborated the FIR. There is another witness, PW3, who has also deposed as an eyewitness. But the victim has stated that after the incident when she had gone to police station, the report was not lodged. The police had then told that first they would inspect the spot. Thereafter, again she visited the police station and report was lodged.

As stated, it is admitted that a report was earlier given, which was received by DW1 on 08.09.2020, which she found to be false.

Without discussing much on the merits, having considered the entirety, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail. The applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant 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 observations made in this bail application shall have no bearing in the trial, which is still pending.