2025:UHC:2659 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1671 of 2024 Gobind Singh Gaida …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Vipul Panuli, learned A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Bail Application has been moved by the applicant-Gobind Singh Gaida(male), aged about 21 years (S/o Anand Singh Gaida, R/o Dhanmil Rampur Road, Haldwani, Distirct Nainital, under Sections 376 (3), 376 (2) (n), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO”) in connection with the Case Crime No. 60 of 2024, registered at Police Station Haldwani, District District Nainital. 2. Heard Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Vipul Panuli, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record. 3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to the animosity of the father of the victim and applicant, who is known to the victim’s mother; that the victim’s father has some grudges 2025:UHC:2659 2 against his wife, who is co-accused in the present matter because she left him with their three children; it is clear from the statement of the victim that the relationships between her father and her mother are estranged; and that whatever statement the victim has given are under the influence of the father. 4. It is also contended on behalf of the applicant that the father has tutored her (victim); that there are totally false allegations against the applicant that he sexually exploited the victim; and in June, 2023, the applicant raped her several times. In January, 2024, the applicant and the victim’s mother rented a room somewhere else and started living there, applicant forcefully raped her on 30.01.2024 at 6:00 p.m. in absence of her mother. 5. It is said that all these accusations are false and that the victim's father tutored them just to seek revenge from the victim’s mother and also from the applicant. 6. The FIR was a delayed one. The FIR was lodged seven months after the incident, and there is no explanation for the delay. There is no mention in the FIR regarding time and date. It is also said that as per the case history, recorded by the Medical Officer, victim narrated only one instance of rape. As per medical records, hymen of the victim is found to be torn and as per the supplementary medical report, no spermatozoa either dead or alive was found and the doctor has said that no definite opinion regarding rape could be given. 7. The victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. does not mention the specific date and time of the incident. There are lots of contradictions, which make 2025:UHC:2659 3 the statement of the victim untrustworthy, and at face value, it seems to be false and fabricated. The victim has categorically mentioned that there is a dispute between her mother and father. It is stressed further that the situation being apparent that the father, being unhappy with the conduct of his wife, had a natural dislike towards the applicant, who is the friend of the victim’s mother. Thus, it is contended that the applicant may be enlarged on bail and he will abide by the conditions thatthis Court imposes. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has strongly opposed the bail application with the contention that the girl is a minor and though it is evident from the records that there is a rift between the parents of the victim and that the mother and father are living separately. It is also evident so far that because the victim’s mother did not believe her regarding the allegations she made against the applicant, and thereby felt unsafe in that kind of environment, the victim came back to her father for security and reassurance. 9. As per the statement of the victim, it is clear that before returning to her father, victim tried to narrate the incident that she was sexually assaulted many times by the applicant, who was living with her mother; but she was not believed upon, instead her mother reprimanded her, which led her to insecurity, and finally the victim returned to her father for shelter and protection. 10. Though the girl may be a minor, she understands that this is a false accusation, and whatever she has stated against the applicant has been tutored by her father. The father and mother of the victim may be 2025:UHC:2659 4 having differences and thereby living apart, but that does not mean that the father would implicate any third person. So, there is no question of the victim being instigated and tutored, thereby giving such false statements against the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that the bail application may be rejected. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, I do not find it a fit case for bail. 12. Firstly, without going into the merits of the case, at this juncture, it can be said that the victim, in her statement, has clearly pointed out that the applicant sexually exploited her not once but several times. 13. Secondly, it is also evident that she tried to confide in and report the incident to her mother, but her mother did not take her side and instead reprimanded her. This led to the victim/child returning to her father for shelter and protection. 14. As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, the doctor, who medically examined the victim, did not clearly opine that it was a case of rape. However, in the Court’s view and as per the law, the role of the doctor in such cases is to provide medical care and a careful examination of the victim/survivor. Whether it is a matter of rape or not is for the Court to decide. This is not a doctor’s prerogative to pronounce the verdict; the doctor is merely an expert. 15. Whether the victim/survivor is a tutored witness or whether the father is manipulating her to be involved in the matter by relinquishing his grudge against his wife, is a matter to be decided on merits. 2025:UHC:2659 5 16. It has been brought to the attention that the victim’s parents are living separately due to personal disputes. In such a fragile family matter, the vulnerability of the victim is heightened, and the possibility of external influence or pressure cannot be ruled out. This concern becomes more relevant in light of the fact that the victim’s support system is divided, and she is already undergoing emotional stress due to the family situation. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts have time and again held that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the paramount consideration is the safety and well-being of the victim, and not just the liberty of the accused. 18. Considering the nature, seriousness of the allegation, gravity of the offence, and the sensitive relationship dynamics involved and the overall circumstances of the case, this court does not find any reasonable ground whereby the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Hence, having insufficient grounds, the Bail Application is hereby rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 08.04.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3 a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C5279 6A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.09 17:54:55 +05'30'