Dismissed

Gaurav v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Sept 2022BA1/879/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected a bail application by Gaurav accused of rape under IPC Sections 376, 506, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Despite arguments regarding a delayed FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's statement, the Court relied on medical evidence confirming the crime and found the case unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed by the applicant is rejected.

Gaurav Vs State of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 879 of 2022

¶3

Gaurav ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Advocate for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

Applicant Gaurav is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.904 of 2021, under Sections 376 & 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Mangalore, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶12

According to the FIR, on 27.09.2021, at about 1:30-2:00, in the afternoon, when the victim was returning to her house, near forest, the applicant pulled her inside a sugarcane field, slapped her, raped her, and the applicant also inserted some sand particles or things

¶13

¶14

like balloons inside her body. The victim was threatened to life. The report was lodged on 01.10.2021.

¶15

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the case is false; the Investigating Officer (“the IO”), who inspected the site did not find any sugarcane field at the place where allegedly the incident took place; the FIR is delayed by 4 days; it is impossible that some person could keep sand particles inside the body for 4 days.

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would argue that initially on 24.10.2021, when the victim was examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (“the Code”), she did not confirm the FIR; according to her, then, since there was a small dispute between her father and the applicant, she lodged a report, but it is argued that subsequently an application was given by the victim after due consultation and her statement was again recorded on 07.01.2022, under Section 164 of the Code, in which she has falsely implicated the applicant.

¶17

¶18

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that it is a very serious offence against the society; a girl has been raped; the medical supports it.

¶19

It is true that the FIR is delayed in this case. The matter is pending in the trial. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected. It is true that in her initial statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code on 21.10.2021, the victim did not support the prosecution case, but fact remains, she moved an application to the concerned court on 03.01.2022, that under threat, she was made to give her statement under Section 164 of the Code; she requested that her statement may be again recorded. In her statement, recorded again under Section 164 of the Code, the victim has totally supported the prosecution case and has stated that she was threatened by the applicant.

¶20

It is argued that it is not possible that in vagina, stone or other foreign articles may remain for 4 days because during that period, the victim might have answered the call of nature, etc.

¶21

Deeper scrutiny at this stage should be avoided. There is a medical examination report, which

¶22

¶23

reveals that on 01.10.2021, when the victim was medically examined, two stones and one condom was removed from her vagina. The Doctor has been examined by the IO. The Doctor has told that the victim had swelling at the outer part of her uterus. She had a lot of pain. The condom was removed along with 2 stones, which were smelling much foul. The doctor has stated that the condom was appearing 2-3 days’ old and was used.

¶24

It is much serious offence. There have been allegations that it is the applicant, who initially threatened the victim to give a statement under Section 164 of the Code.

¶25

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

¶26

The bail applications is rejected.

¶27

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.09.2022

¶28

Ravi Bisht

Gaurav v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav 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

Deepak Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jagdamba Prasad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vimal Kumar Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Irfan Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat Complex

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

Shivam Gupta Alias Kallu Vs State of Uttarakhand