Manoj Rawat v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

t rial court t hat when t he vict im was first brought for m edical exam inat ion, she expressly declined t o undergo t he procedure. This reluct ance or refusal, at a crucial init ial st age, creat es a vacuum cont em poraneous m edical corroborat ion.

17. Furt herm ore, PW- 5, t he m ot her of t he vict im , disclosed in her deposit ion t hat her daught er was in a consensual relat ionship wit h a person nam ed Badal, t hat she had previously conceived t hat relat ionship. This is not a m ere ext raneous claim , but is part ially support ed by t he m edical report , which indicat es t hat t he hym en was “ old t orn wit h healed 4 m argins,” t hereby suggest ing t he absence of recent forcible sexual act ivit y. The conj oint reading of t hese deposit ions and t he m edical opinion cast s a shadow over t he St at e’s narrat ive and weakens t he chain of event s sought t o be est ablished.

18. These developm ent s highlight m at erial gaps in t he St at e’s case. The precise t im eline of t he incident rem ains uncert ain, and t he evolving allegat ions necessit at e t hat great er clarit y be sought during t he t rial.

19. I t is not t he province of t his Court t o evaluat e evidence in det ail at t he bail st age; however, t he m at erial inconsist encies and cont radict ions on record weigh in favour of grant ing libert y t o t he applicant , part icularly when t he possibilit y prolonged incarcerat ion loom s and t here is no allegat ion of any t hreat or inducem ent by t he applicant post- arrest .

20. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Mahipal v. Raj esh Kum ar, ( 2020) 2 SCC 118, has held t hat t he seriousness of an offence is no doubt an im port ant considerat ion, but it cannot be t he sole ground t o deny bail where t he m at erial on record does not prim a facie support t he charge and where t here is no likelihood of t he accused fleeing from j ust ice or t am pering wit h evidence. Sim ilarly, in Prasant a Kum ar Sarkar v. Ashish Chat t erj ee ( 2010) 14 SCC 496, t he Court underscored t he need t o balance t he presum pt ion of innocence wit h t he requirem ent t o ensure j ust ice.

21. I n t he present m at t er, t he applicant has no prior crim inal ant ecedent s. He is a young m an of 25 years and has been in cust ody for over t wo m ont hs. 5 The invest igat ion is com plet e, and t he charge sheet has been filed. The apprehension t hat he m ay influence wit nesses can be addressed by im posing appropriat e condit ions.

22. Considering t he t ot alit y of t he fact s and circum st ances, including t he delay lodging t he m at erial st at em ent s, t he inconsist encies em erging from m edical and t est im onial evidence, t he applicant ’s clean ant ecedent s, and t he fact t hat t he t rial m ay t ake considerable t im e t o conclude, t his Court is of t he opinion t hat t he applicant has m ade out a fit case for grant of bail.

23. Let t he applicant , Manoj Rawat , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond wit h t wo suret ies of t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. The applicant shall: ( i) Not evade t he t rial and rem ain present before t he t rial court as and when required; ( ii) Not t am per wit h evidence in any m anner; and ( iii) Not influence, induce, or int im idat e any wit ness;

24. I n case of breach of any of t hese condit ions, t he St at e shall be at libert y t o apply for cancellat ion of bail.

25. The bail applicat ion is accordingly allowed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 09.04.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6