CRLA/99/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 879 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.          or proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                 IA/1/2022 (Bail Application)
                                 In
                                 CRLA No.99 of 2022
                                 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant.

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

The appellant is a convict for commission of offence under Section 376(1), as he stands convicted by the impugned judgment dated 09.03.2022, as it has been rendered by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in ST No.08/2021, State Vs. Vaibhav Nehra", whereby he has been directed to undergo a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC and directed to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution's story cannot be believed with, because the statement made by the prosecutrix herself. He submits that the story is developed by the prosecution is unbelievable, owning to the statement made by her in an intoxicated state. She has made certain statements with regards to her intention during the course of fantasy game but the statement made with regards to the use of word "century score" cannot be culled out, that it could be related with regards to establishment of physical relationship with 100 male members, which is being sought to be argued by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, that she has said that she has already scored 14.

Secondly, the statement which has been tried to be attracted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant, that the victim has observed that she wanted to have a male like that of the present accused person, that too itself cannot be said to be made out, that it showed the intention of the victim with regards to her intention of establishment of the physical relationship.

The Government Advocate opposes the learned senior counsel for the applicant, on the ground that there is no material contraction in the statement of the victim, as she has consistently maintained her stand, ever since registration of the FIR and even recording of her statement and even the FSL report supports the prosecution's story.

Though this fact has been denied by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, but, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, this Court should refrain itself to dwell into the merits of the matter with regards to the appreciation of the evidence in relation to the involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. But looking to the nature of the offence and its seriousness, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 31.03.2023 Sukhbant