Uttarakhand High Court
Jagdish Singh Nagnyal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 June, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 904 of 2020
Jagdish Singh Nagnyal ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. V.K. Gemini, D.A.G. assisted by Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Jagdish Singh Nagnyal is in judicial custody, in FIR No. 16 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Dharchula, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the case, the applicant raped the victim, a girl aged 16 years and threatened her to life. Long thereafter, the victim revealed the incident to her father, who lodged the FIR.
2
4. It is told to the Court today that the chargesheet has been filed and the case is still pending.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is much delayed; there is no date and time specified either in the FIR or in the statement of the victim; although the victim tells the Investigating Officer ("IO") that she was pregnant, but the medical does not support; even after lapse of two years, the victim has not yet been examined. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case; the victim is minor. Hence, it is not a case fit for bail.
7. The victim has categorically told it to IO or in her statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that it is the applicant, who tried to come near to the victim. He insisted the victim to establish physical relations under the pretext of marriage. She became pregnant but the applicant provided medicines for abortion. On subsequent occasion also, when the victim became pregnant, she was administered medicines. The applicant threatened the victim. The victim has also stated that last time, the applicant established relations with her on 14.03.2020. The FIR has been lodged on 12.05.2020. It is delayed, but delay alone is not a 3 ground to discard the prosecution case in such a matter when the various aspects of the victim or her family are considered before lodging the FIR. It is true that according to the medical report, the victim was not found pregnant, but the victim has stated that each time she conceived, the applicant administered medicines to her. The victim was a young girl of 16 years. Her consent has no significance.
8. Therefore, having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The instant bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is accordingly rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 14.06.2022 Ravi Bisht