Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/67/2021 on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
16TH AUGUST, 2022
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1 of 2021
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 67 of 2021
Between:
Rinku ...Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
Counsel for the Victim : Mr. D.C. Joshi, learned
counsel.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
The instant Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2021)
has been filed for seeking bail in this Criminal Appeal.
2. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed
against the judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed by the
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge
(POCSO), Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No.48 of
2018, "State vs. Rinku", whereby, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 376 (2)(i) of
IPC, and, in default of payment of fine, he has been
directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a
period of six months; he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two
years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 506 IPC, and, in default of
payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of one month; he has been
further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(hereinafter referred to as, "the Act, 2012"), and, in
default of payment of fine, he has been directed to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three
months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for
the appellant, Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned A.G.A. for the
State and Mr. D. C. Joshi, the learned counsel for the
Victim on Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2021).
4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. The
prosecutrix was not minor at the time of the alleged
offence. The date of birth of prosecutrix has not been
proved in accordance with law. The appellant was not
present in the marriage ceremony. During the
investigation, no injury was found on the private part of
the prosecutrix. There are material contradictions in the
statements of the prosecution's witnesses.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing
for the victim opposed the bail application and submitted
that the prosecution's witnesses, including the prosecutrix,
aged about 13 years, have supported the case of the
prosecution. The date of birth of the prosecutrix has been
proved by the prosecution. According to the school
register, her date of birth is 12.01.2003 and according to
the present matter, on 18.02.2018, the prosecutrix had
gone in a marriage with her uncle & aunt. The appellant
was also present in the marriage. She didn't know him.
Her uncle sent her home with the appellant on his
motorcycle. On the way, in the area of the forest, he
stopped his motorcycle. He made a phone call and called
two boys. The appellant pulled her to a sugarcane field
and committed rape upon her.
6. The learned counsel for the State further
submitted that the mother & father of the prosecutrix also
stated in their evidence that the date of birth of the
prosecutrix is 12.01.2003. After availing opportunity to
cross-examine, nothing was cross-examined on behalf of
the appellant regarding the age of the prosecutrix.
7. The said Act, 2012 has been enacted to
strengthen the legal provisions for the protection of
children from sexual abuses and exploitations. Penetrative
sexual assault is most heinous offence causing enormous
emotional and physical harm that can lost throughout child
victim's life time.
8. In the present matter, the prosecution's
witnesses, including the prosecutrix, have supported the
case of the prosecution. At this stage, a detailed
appreciation of evidence shall affect the merits of the
case. In consideration of the prayer for bail in a case
involving a serious offence, like the present case i.e. the
case of penetrative sexual assault, the Court should
consider the relevant factors like the gravity of the offence
and the desirability of releasing the appellant on bail. If a
strong prima facie ground is disclosed for substantial
doubt about the conviction, it may be ground to grant the
bail. But, such a ground does not appear in the present
case.
9. Therefore, without commenting on the merit of
the appeal, there is no good ground to release the
appellant, involved in the crime, on bail. The bail
application is rejected accordingly.
10. It is clarified that the observations made
regarding the bail application are limited to the decision of
this bail application as to whether the bail application
should be allowed or not. The said observations shall not
effect the merit of this appeal.
11. List this Appeal on 26.09.2022 for final hearing.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 16.08.2022
JKJ/Pant
