High Court · 2025

H o n ' b l e Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J. 1. Mr. Siddhart h Bankot i, learned counsel for t he applicant t hrough Legal Aid. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharm a, A.G.A. for t he St at e. inst ant bail applicat ion has The 3. been m oved t he Legal Aid Counsel who has been aut horized by t he Ut t arakhand Service Aut horit y inst ant bail applicat ion on behalf of t he applicant . Present applicant Basant Kum ar 4. Cham oli, S/ o Om Prakash Cham oli praying for bail in relat ion t o FI R dat ed 17.01.2024, bearing FI R No. 25 of 2024, regist ered at P.S. Raipur Dist rict Dehradun wherein t he present applicant has been im plicat ed and charge sheet ed t he offences punishable under Sect ions 323, 376, 504 and 506 I PC read wit h Sect ion 5( l) / ( n) and 6 of t he POCSO Act . 5. This is a very unfort unat e case in which t he allegat ion of com m ission of rape wit h his own daught er has been alleged by t he com plainant , wife of t he applicant . The FI R was lodged and regist ered on 17.01.2024 at P.S. Raipur Dist rict Dehradun by t he wife of t he applicant , nam ely, Guddi Devi im plicat ing serious present allegat ion of com m ission of rape wit h his m inor FI R, subsequent ly, charge sheet was filed on 10.03.2024 and t hereaft er charges were fram ed com m enced. The present applicant was arrest ed in t his offence on 17.01.2024 applicant wit h daught er. t rial t his t he I n a t he j ail. Since inst ant bail applicat ion has been m oved t hrough Legal Aid Counsel and t o exam ine t he seriousness of t he allegat ions t hat t oo against t o fat her wit h rape wit h his m inor com m ission of i.e, daught er, on 21.07.2025, Jail Superint endent was direct ed t o appear t hrough V.C. along wit h t he applicant . t he previous dat e, t he concerned regard t he t hereof com pliance st at em ent s were t hrough V.C. along wit h I n t he Jail Superint endent 23.07.2025, t he appears applicant and t his Court int eract wit h t he applicant who apprised t his Court t hat recorded during ent ire invest igat ion by t he concerned invest igat ing officer. I n order t o verify t his, t he concerned I .O. Ms. Hem lat aKuniyal was also asked t o j oin t he proceedings t hrough V.C. and in com pliance t hereof she also j oined and apprised t his Court t hat t he st at em ent of t he applicant was recorded during invest igat ion. On t his, t he concerned I .O. was direct ed t o file her personal affidavit and learned Legal Aid Counsel was also direct ed t o file supplem ent ary affidavit . t he order dat ed I n com pliance 23.07.2025, t he concerned I .O. filed her personal affidavit on 05.08.2025 and in para 4 she has st at ed t hat deponent being invest igat ing officer recorded t he st at em ent of t he accused/ applicant and filed on t hereaft er charge sheet was 10.03.2024 against t he applicant for t he offences punishable under Sect ions 323, 504, 506 and 376 I PC read wit h Sect ion 5( l) ( n) / 6 of t he POCSO Act . recorded under 6. is annexed as Sect ion 161 CR.P.C. Annexure 1 and 2 t he personal affidavit of t he I .O. concerned. Annexure t he t he personal affidavit 1 st at em ent recorded under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C. but t here is no reference of t he st at em ent The t o t o t o t he t he t he seriousness of dat e when t his st at em ent was recorded. On perusal of t his st at em ent it reveals t hat even not a single quest ion was put by t he I .O. t o t he applicant and t he st at em ent appears t o be a confessional st at em ent t o som e ext ent . I t appears I .O. t his part icular case t hat conduct ed t he invest igat ion in a very casual m anner and she was not bot hered t he t o exam ine allegat ion t hat t oo against t he fat her. Supplem ent ary affidavit has also been filed by t he applicant and on perusal of t his affidavit it reveals t hat if in t his affidavit applicant j ust ificat ion t hen t he quest ion is why he has not st at ed before t he I .O. Though, in para 23 it is cat egorically st at ed t hat t he invest igat ion was concluded in a very t he applicant ’s cursory m anner and version was never been heard or t aken by t he I .O. Apart from t his, even t he m edical report does not support t he case of t he prosecut ion and t here is no inj ury m ark on t he body of t he deceased. I t is not proper for t his Court t o 6. exam ine all t hese aspect s part icularly t he m anner in which t he invest igat ion was carried out , since, it will affect t he t rial. 7. Mr. Sharm a, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e subm it s t hat on t he charge sheet t he t rial court t ook cognizance and t he t rial has been com m enced and t he present applicant is languishing in j ail since 17.01.2024. Aft er hearing t he argum ent s of t he 8. t he part ies and learned counsel t aking t he t hat invest igat ion in t his case t hough was conduct ed in a very cursory m anner but furt her t aking int o considerat ion t hat t he applicant is languishing in j ail since last m ore t han one and half year , t herefore, t his Court t he applicant deserves for bail. considerat ion t he view is of t hat int o t o Accordingly wit hout expressing any 9. opinion on t he m erit of t he case, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. t he applicant Basant Kum ar 10. Let released on bail on his Cham oli be t he execut ing a personal bond t he court concerned sat isfact ion of subj ect t o t his condit ion t hat aft er being released furnish appropriat e suret ies wit hin a week t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. 11. I t is m ade clear t hat aft er being released on bail t he applicant shall j oin t he proceedings of t rial court on each and every dat e and t he t rial court is also sim ult aneously direct ed t o proceed wit h t he t rial st rict ly on it s own m erit . he will ( Ra k e sh Th a p l i y a l , J.) 1 4 .0 8 .2 0 2 5 Parul