BA1/1838/2024 of ROKINS ALIAS ROCKY Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025:UHC:3098

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

Bail Application 1[st] No. 1838 of 2024

Rockins alias Rocky

......Applicant

State of Uttarakhand

…..Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 115 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 366 and 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant is in judicial custody since 27.08.2022.

The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 07.05.2022, alleging that his minor daughter had gone to Hariyawala to purchase medicine on 06.05.2022 but did not return. Initially registered under Section 365 IPC, the case was later enhanced upon the victim’s return and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, implicating

the present applicant, said to be the nephew of co-accused Mamta, in forcibly marrying and engaging in sexual relations with her.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

It is argued that there are material contradictions in the

victim’s statements under Section 164 CrPC and her examination-in-chief before the court. While her statement under Section 164 CrPC suggests that the relationship was consensual and the accused did not force her, her testimony in court later alleged compulsion. It is further submitted that there are no external injuries recorded in the medical examination; that the victim changed her clothes before examination; and that the doctor merely opined that the possibility of sexual relations could not be ruled out.

It is further pointed out that the victim, by her own account, stayed with the applicant for about 15 days, moved locations, and made no attempt to flee or raise alarm. The co-accused Mamta has already been granted bail, and the applicant has no previous criminal history. It is also submitted that the applicant suffers from seizures.

The State opposes the bail application, arguing that the victim was minor, having been born on 19.12.2007 as per school records, and the medical examination revealed ruptured hymen. The applicant is alleged to have committed serious offences under the POCSO Act, and given the gravity of the charges, he should not be enlarged on bail.

Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the victim’s statements under Section 164 CrPC and before the trial court are materially inconsistent, particularly regarding consent and the conduct of the accused. Her deposition does not disclose clear coercion or threats at the time of the alleged incident.

The medical evidence does not record any signs of physical injury or resistance, and the examining doctor has not opined conclusively in favour of forcible assault. The possibility of sexual relations, though not ruled out, is not corroborated by physical findings.

As to the age of the victim, reliance is placed on school records which appear to suffer from overwriting and lack of foundational documentation. The school principal (PW-3) has acknowledged that the birth date was orally provided and that there is no birth certificate on record. This renders the evidence as to the prosecutrix’s age uncertain at this stage.

The conduct of the victim during the relevant period—her travel across places, stay with the accused, and absence of resistance—while not determinative, weakens the prosecution’s narrative of abduction or sustained coercion.

The co-accused has already been granted bail. No role graver than that of the co-accused has been attributed to the applicant. The applicant has remained in custody for over 20 months and the trial is still at an early stage with only five witnesses examined. In view of the prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the presumption of innocence, his continued detention is not warranted.

In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” Similarly, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Court underscored the importance of balancing the gravity of offence with considerations of prolonged custody, presumption of innocence, and likelihood of undue delay in conclusion of trial.

Considering the totality of circumstances, including the inconsistencies in the victim's statements, questionable proof of minority, absence of medical corroboration of coercion, and long period of custody already undergone by the applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

ORDER

Let the applicant, Rockins alias Rocky, be released on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence, shall not attempt to influence any witness, and shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any of these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

The bail application is allowed.

09.04.2025

(Ashish Naithani, J)