Dismissed

Gaurav Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Sept 2022BA1/1263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a rape and POCSO case involving a 17-year-old victim. The High Court rejected bail, holding that despite lack of recovered fetal evidence, medical discovery of pregnancy and victim testimony about threats and forced relations made the charge serious enough to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; Applicant ordered to remain in judicial custody.

Gaurav Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 1263 of 2022

¶3

Gaurav Rawat ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. with Mr. Deepak Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Applicant Gaurav Rawat is in judicial custody in FIR No.41 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Selaqui, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

According to the FIR, the victim was raped by the applicant from six months prior of lodging of the FIR. The victim was 17 years of age and the applicant was 26 years of age. The FIR records that the applicant enticed the victim and thereafter, raped her. He also threatened the victim to life that, in case, she would reveal it to

¶13

¶14

anyone, he will disfigure her face by acid. Subsequently, the victim had pain in the stomach, it is revealed that she is pregnant. She got the foetus aborted. The applicant threatened her. The victim revealed it to her friend named Preeti. Thereafter, the FIR is lodged.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the charge-sheet records that the foetus could not be recovered because the victim did not reveal the details about it, as to where was it aborted? Therefore, it is argued that, in fact, the victim could have been instituted under Section 313 IPC.

¶16

It is argued that FIR is delayed; it appears that the Preeti helped the victim to lodge the FIR; in para 6 of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) reveals that, in fact, the victim demanded `20,000/- from the applicant and when he denied to pay, he has been falsely implicated.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case under Section 161 and 164 of the Code and, in fact, the medical examination report confirmed it.

¶18

¶19

It is true that the foetus has not been recovered. It is a case of sexual assault on a girl child.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that according to the victim, she was raped in the house of the applicant.

¶21

In her statement given during investigation, the victim has categorically stated that the applicant forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened her life or to disfigure her face by acid. In her examination under Section 164 of the Code, she has also stated that by collecting money from her friends she got abortion done, almost `20,000/- were spent. She demanded it from the applicant.

¶22

The Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny of the case. The doctor has revealed it to the Investigating Officer that, in fact, the victim has visited her for Sonographic examination, when pregnancy was detected.

¶23

It is not in all cases that there should be medical evidence. The testimony of victim has great bearing in such cases. In the cases of rape, sexual assault, etc. generally FIRs are delayed for varied reasons, which may perhaps call for the scrutiny during trial. But,

¶24

¶25

the victim is a girl child. Even if, she had any kind of consent, though applicant denied to have any relations with the victim, it has less bearing because of her age.

¶26

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

¶27

The bail application is rejected.

¶28

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.09.2022

¶29

Sanjay

Gaurav Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat Complex

Minor through His Natural Guardian (Mohter) Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naveen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tota Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand