State of Uttarakhand v. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the

2. As per the prosecution story the first information report was lodged by the father of the victim against the applicant on

08.06.2024. It was alleged that their daughter (victim) was unwell and it was revealed later that the applicant had sexually assaulted her. He took her to a hotel and forcibly made physical relation with her.

3. In the present matter the applicant is said to be 20 years old whereas, the victim is said to be 17 years and 3 months old on the date of incident i.e. 24.07.2024.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that it is not proved the case is otherwise that the physical relationship were consensual and the victim girl went there with the applicant out of her own will without any fear, pressure or coercion. 1

5. It is clear from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate that she was in touch with the applicant and they used to exchange messages on phone. It is also evident as per record that on the date the applicant took her to hotel, it is otherwise as the victim herself went on her scooty and visited the applicant to meet him in the said hotel.

6. It is also contended that in her testimony she has clearly stated that she herself went to meet the applicant and stayed with him in the hotel with one of her friend, who stayed in another room. It is also contended that at the time of her medical examination on 10.06.2204, she has narrated the case history before the medical officer stating therein that she knew the applicant since past one year and they went to the hotel and made physical relationship thereafter she returned home. It is also contended that doctor, who conducted the medical examination on the victim, has stated that she had examined the victim and specified in her report that nothing can be clearly pointed out as to whether physical relation were being made or not.

7. It is stated that the applicant was falsely implicated merely on the ground that father of the victim was against the relationship of the applicant and victim and just to create more pressure and to meet out his grudges, he lodged an FIR against the applicant.

8. It is contended that the relationship is consensual and the victim has supported the applicant and whatever averments she has made before the court or before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been done due to pressure of her father, who is the complainant in the present matter and despises the applicant. Thus, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 2

9. Learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the bail application on the ground; firstly that the victim is a minor; secondly, the victim has strongly supported the prosecution version that physical relationship were made between the applicant and the victim. First statement regarding the physical relationship between the applicant and herself was stated before the police under Section of Cr.P.C. thereafter before learned Magistrate under Section 164 and thereafter in her testimony before the learned trial court, nowhere she has deteriorated from her statement that no physical relations were made out ever. Since the victim girl child is a minor her consent does not matter as per law and as per presumption of law the applicant in the instant case enticed her and committed physical relationship with her in a hotel.

10. Thus it is a sensitive case of an aggravative penetrative sexual assault amounting to rape committed against a minor, in this case that is the victim. The bail application should be rejected otherwise it will pose a threat to the victim and the applicant may influence the witnesses or may pressurize them to change the statements.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal the record, I do not find any sufficient ground for bail. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view; firstly that the victim girl child was minor at the date of incident and her consent regarding the physical relationship does not matter; secondly the statement given by her during the course of medical examination before the Medical Officer as the case history, she has made a statement that there were physical relationship made between her and the applicant in a hotel. In the statement of hotel Manager, it is stated that the applicant had got the girl in his hotel; he further states that there was another girl with the applicant, that day, who stayed in another room. 3

12. In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has made the same averment that the applicant had booked hotel where he took her and sexually harassed her and also compiled obscene video of her by which he used to blackmail her.

13. So far as the delay in the FIR is concerned, it is not very relevant in such sensitive matters as in such circumstances, there are many inhabitation that are concerned the victim and her family only after when the water of credibility reaches on danger mark then only such extreme steps are taken by the family or by the victim in such cases where reputation of the victim and the family is at stake and there may be apprehension of lifelong stigma.

14. Accordingly, with the above initial findings and without going into the merits, this Court is of the opinion that no good ground is found for grant of bail. Therefore, the instant bail application is rejected. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.)

26.03.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH 4