Ravindra v. State of Uttarakhand

the First Information Report, the applicant is alleged to have abducted a minor girl, administered intoxicating substances to her, and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on multiple occasions. It is further alleged that he threatened the victim with dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to a monetary dispute with the victim’s father, as both were engaged in contractual work. It is submitted that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure suffer from 1 contradictions. The medical report, is urged, does not conclusively establish the occurrence of sexual assault. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and has already undergone substantial incarceration.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are of a grave nature and pertain to a sexual offence against a minor. The victim, in her statement, has clearly alleged that she was lured into the applicant’s vehicle under the pretext of being dropped at school and thereafter administered intoxicants and taken to multiple locations, including Haridwar, where she was subjected to repeated sexual assault. The prosecution relies upon the medical report, which indicates a torn hymen and injuries suggestive of trauma. The school records establish the victim’s date of birth as 05.12.2006, thereby bringing her within the definition of a child under the POCSO Act.

5. Learned counsels for the parties were heard at length and the material available on record was perused.

6. The nature and seriousness of the allegations, involving the abduction and repeated sexual assault of a minor child, besides administration of intoxicants and issuance of threats, warrant a guarded approach at this stage. The rigour of Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and the legislative object underlying the enactment must inform the Court’s consideration of bail in such matters. While the principle “bail is the rule and jail the exception” laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, remains foundational, it cannot override the particular statutory context and factual matrix of each case.

7. The records indicate that the victim was 16 years and 8 months of age at the time of the incident. Thus, she clearly falls within the definition of “child” under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act. The fact that she was nearing the age of majority does not dilute the statutory protection afforded to her. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Raj Kumar, (2022) 9 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the protective framework of POCSO cannot be narrowly construed or applied with technical exceptions.

8. The medical report discloses a torn hymen, swelling, and redness. While the report may not, by itself, be conclusive of rape, it provides prima facie corroboration to the victim’s allegations. In State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, (2000) 4 SCC 75, it was held that absence of medical confirmation does not undermine the credibility of the prosecutrix where her version inspires confidence.

9. The statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are substantially consistent in asserting that the applicant abducted her, drugged her, and subjected her to repeated sexual assault. Minor variations in such statements are neither unexpected nor material, especially when the account concerns a traumatising experience. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the sole testimony of the victim, if trustworthy, is sufficient for conviction in such cases.

10. The applicant is known to the victim’s family. There exists a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338, held that the possibility of witness tampering is a relevant and sufficient ground to decline bail.

11. The applicant resides in another State, and given the gravity of the charges, there is a real risk of his absconding. His continued custody is necessary to ensure his presence at trial and to prevent any possible interference with the course of justice.

12. The contention of false implication on account of monetary dispute, even if accepted for the sake of argument, does not justify the grant of bail in the face of serious and specific allegations supported by medical and testimonial material. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that in serious offences, bail cannot be granted solely on technical or unsubstantiated defences. ORDER

13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The possibility of witness tampering, the gravity of the offence, and the statutory protection extended to the minor victim under the POCSO Act weigh against the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant.

14. The bail application stands rejected. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) NR/

26.03.2025