BA2/22/2021 of RAJAT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- State of Uttarakhand (PETITIONER)
- Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J (RESPONDENT)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.22 of 2021
Rajat
State of Uttarakhand
Versus
….....Applicant
….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicant Rajat is in judicial custody Case Crime No./FIR No. 29 of 2020, under Sections 363, 376 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
3. This is second bail application. The first bail application has already been rejected on 29.08.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in her statement before the Court, the victim did not categorically state that the applicant established physical relations with her and it is new ground for bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the victim had categorically stated before the court that after enticing the victim from her house, the applicant took her to Mumbai and he committed Badtamizi Jabardasti with her despite her persistent refusal. It is submitted that the statement of the victim cannot be read in isolation. She has stated about incident in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) and other attending factors.
6. This Court does not intend to, at the stage of second bail application, interpret the words which are uttered by the victim during the trial.
7. Having considered the statement of the victim, which is filed on record as well as statements of the father and mother of the victim as well as statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code, as proved by the victim herself in the court, this Court does not see any new ground which may entitle the applicant for bail. Hence, the second bail application deserves to be rejected.
8. The second bail is rejected.
Jitendra
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.06.2021