St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Counsel for t he St at e

Heard Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for t he applicant and Mr. Vipul Panuli, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand and perused t he record.

3. I t is cont ended on behalf of t he applicant t hat t he applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely im plicat ed in t he present case due t o t he anim osit y of t he fat her of t he vict im and applicant , who is known t o t he vict im ’s m ot her; t hat t he vict im ’s fat her has som e grudges 2 against his wife, who is co- accused in t he present m at t er because she left him wit h t heir t hree children; it is clear from t he st at em ent of t he vict im t hat t he relat ionships bet ween her fat her and her m ot her are est ranged; and t hat what ever st at em ent t he vict im has given are under t he influence of t he fat her.

4. I t is also cont ended on behalf of t he applicant t hat t he fat her has t ut ored her ( vict im ) ; t hat t here are t ot ally false allegat ions against t he applicant t hat he sexually exploit ed t he vict im ; and in June, 2023, t he applicant raped her several t im es. I n January, 2024, t he applicant and t he vict im ’s m ot her rent ed a som ewhere else and st art ed living t here, applicant forcefully raped her on 30.01.2024 at 6: 00 p.m . absence of her m ot her.

5. I t is said t hat all t hese accusat ions are false and t hat t he vict im 's fat her t ut ored t hem j ust t o seek revenge from t he vict im ’s m ot her and also from t he applicant .

6. The FI R was a delayed one. The FI R was lodged seven m ont hs aft er t he incident , and t here is no explanat ion for t he delay. There is no m ent ion in t he FI R regarding t im e and dat e. I t is also said t hat as per t he case hist ory, recorded by t he Medical Officer, vict im narrat ed only one inst ance of rape. As per m edical records, hym en of t he vict im is found t o be t orn and as per t he supplem ent ary m edical report , no sperm at ozoa eit her dead or alive was found and t he doct or has said t hat no definit e opinion regarding rape could be given.

7. The vict im ’s st at em ent under Sect ions 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. does not m ent ion t he specific dat e and t im e of t he incident . There are lot s of cont radict ions, which m ake 3 t he st at em ent of t he vict im unt rust wort hy, and at face value, it seem s t o be false and fabricat ed. The vict im has cat egorically m ent ioned t hat t here is a disput e bet ween her m ot her and fat her. I t is st ressed furt her t hat t he sit uat ion being apparent t hat t he fat her, being unhappy wit h t he conduct of his wife, had a nat ural dislike t owards t he applicant , who is t he friend of t he vict im ’s m ot her. Thus, it is cont ended t hat t he applicant m ay be enlarged on bail and he will abide by t he condit ions t hat t his Court im poses.

8. On t he ot her hand, learned St at e Counsel has st rongly opposed t he bail applicat ion wit h t he cont ent ion t hat t he girl is a m inor and t hough it is evident from t he records t hat t here is a rift bet ween t he parent s of t he vict im and t hat t he m ot her and fat her are living separat ely. I t is also evident so far t hat because t he vict im ’s m ot her did not believe her regarding t he allegat ions she m ade against t he applicant , and t hereby felt unsafe in t hat kind of environm ent , t he vict im cam e back t o her fat her for securit y and reassurance.

9. As per t he st at em ent of t he vict im , it is clear t hat before ret urning t o her fat her, vict im t ried t o narrat e t he incident t hat she was sexually assault ed m any t im es by t he applicant , who was living wit h her m ot her; but she was not believed upon, inst ead her m ot her reprim anded her, which led her t o insecurit y, and finally t he vict im ret urned t o her fat her for shelt er and prot ect ion.

10. Though t he girl m ay be a m inor, she underst ands t hat t his is a false accusat ion, and what ever she has st at ed against t he applicant has been t ut ored by her fat her. The fat her and m ot her of t he vict im m ay be 4 having differences and t hereby living apart , but t hat does not m ean t hat t he fat her would im plicat e any t hird person. So, t here is no quest ion of t he vict im being inst igat ed and t ut ored, t hereby giving such false st at em ent s against t he applicant . I t is, t herefore, cont ended t hat t he bail applicat ion m ay be rej ect ed.

11. Aft er hearing t he learned counsel for t he part ies and perusing t he records, I do not find it a fit case for bail.

12. First ly, wit hout going int o t he m erit s of t he case, at t his j unct ure, it can be said t hat t he vict im , in her st at em ent , has clearly point ed out t hat t he applicant sexually exploit ed her not once but several t im es.

13. Secondly, it is also evident t hat she t ried t o confide in and report t he incident t o her m ot her, but her m ot her did not t ake her side and inst ead reprim anded her. This led t o t he vict im / child ret urning t o her fat her for shelt er and prot ect ion.

14. As far as t he cont ent ions of t he learned counsel for t he applicant are concerned, t he doct or, who m edically exam ined t he vict im , did not clearly opine t hat it was a case of rape. However, in t he Court ’s view and as per t he law, t he role of t he doct or in such cases is t o provide m edical care and a careful exam inat ion of t he vict im / survivor. Whet her it is a m at t er of rape or not is for t he Court t o decide. This is not a doct or’s prerogat ive t o pronounce t he verdict ; t he doct or is m erely an expert .

15. Whet her t he vict im / survivor is a t ut ored wit ness or whet her t he fat her is m anipulat ing her t o be involved in t he m at t er by relinquishing his grudge against his wife, is a m at t er t o be decided on m erit s. 5

16. I t has been brought t o t he at t ent ion t hat t he vict im ’s parent s are living separat ely due t o personal disput es. I n such a fragile fam ily m at t er, t he vulnerabilit y of t he vict im is height ened, and t he possibilit y of ext ernal influence or pressure cannot be ruled out . This concern becom es m ore relevant in light of t he fact t hat t he vict im ’s support syst em is divided, and she is already undergoing em ot ional st ress due t o t he fam ily sit uat ion.

17. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court and various High Court s have t im e and again held t hat in cases involving sexual offences against m inors, t he param ount considerat ion is t he safet y and well- being of t he vict im , and not j ust t he libert y of t he accused.

18. Considering t he nat ure, seriousness of t he allegat ion, gravit y of t he offence, and t he sensit ive relat ionship dynam ics involved t he overall circum st ances of t he case, t his court does not find any reasonable ground whereby t he applicant m ay be enlarged on bail. Hence, having insufficient grounds, t he Bail Applicat ion is hereby rej ect ed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 08.04.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3 a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C5279 6A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA