Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 31 December, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 1361 of 2024
Dinesh ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant through video
conferencing.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Dinesh is in judicial custody in Case
Crime/FIR No. 50 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 511, 323
& 504 IPC and Section 3/4/18 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Raipur,
District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 22.01.2023, the
applicant tried to rape the victim, a young girl of 15 years.
Somehow, the victim could raise alarm to save her.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the statement of the victim is not reliable; during
investigation and at different stages, the victim has stated
that a person had come, when the alleged act was done, but
that person has never been examined. Reference has been
made to the statement of the victim as well as the statement
2
of her father. It is also argued that as per the victim, she
sustained injuries, which she had shown to the doctor, but
the doctor did not find any injuries except some small
abrasions.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
victim has supported the prosecution case.
6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not
expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the
caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no
bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other
proceeding.
7. The victim is a young girl aged 15 years.
According to the victim, on the date of incident, she was
proceeding to meet her mother when the applicant met her;
the victim wished the applicant, but according to the victim,
the applicant sexually assaulted her, tried to rape her, but
somehow she could save herself. The victim has stated
about injuries. The doctor found very small abrasions on
her. If a person, who had reached at the time of alleged
incident has not been examined, what would be its effect
that would fall for scrutiny during trial. The victim has been
consistent throughout as to what had happened to her.
3
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that
it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application
deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
31.12.2024
Avneet/