Uttarakhand High Court
Somprakash vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 August, 2020
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.817 of 2020
Somprakash .......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Present:
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
1. The applicant-Somprakash is in judicial custody in FIR No.36 of 2020, under Section 354 A (1) IPC and Section 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , Police Station Lal Kuan, District Nainital. The applicant has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing and perused the material on record.
3. According to the case, the victim a minor girl left her house on 18.02.2020 at 5:00 P.M. in the evening, but she did not return. A report of her missing was given at Police Station-Lal Kuan on 19.02.2020 at 9:21 P.M. This is the FIR.
4. According to the case, on the same day, on 19.02.2020, the victim returned home. On 25.02.2020, the statement of victim was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) and in her initial statement, she did not name the applicant. Thereafter, the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code. At that stage, for the first time, she revealed that when co accused enticed and raped her and left her at Haldwani, it is the applicant, who took her, who gave her shelter and in the night, he tried to outrage her modesty, but when she objected to it, the applicant left her next day at 4:00 early in the morning. Thereafter, the victim was further examined by the Investigating Officer and she implicated the applicant.
25. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that both the co accused have been granted bail, one of whom was a child; the applicant runs a shop; he has been falsely implicated; when the victim was recovered on 19.02.2020, she did not name the applicant to anyone. On 25.02.2020, when she was examined by the Investigating Officer, she did not name the applicant and the applicant has been implicated by the victim for the first time on 28.02.2020.
6. Learned State Counsel admits that, for the first time, the victim named the applicant in her statement which was recorded under Section 164 of the Code.
7. The victim left her home on 18.02.2020 as per her statement under Section 161 of the Code, she returned her house on 19.02.2020. On 28.02.2020, the Investigating Officer interrogated her but she did not name the applicant. She named the co accused, one of whom, according to the victim, did rape her. On 28.02.2020, for the first time, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, a role has been assigned to the applicant by the victim.
8. Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Somprakash, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
9. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Court and Jail concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.08.2020 Ravi