IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.1843 of 2024 Jeetu Kumar ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Ms. Shruti Joshi, learned counsel, for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the applicant, Jeetu, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 379 of 2024, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. The applicant has been in custody since 14.12.2023. 2. It has been alleged that on 29.09.2023, the applicant, who was working at Masiko Sports Pvt. Ltd., Lal Tappar, District Dehradun, lured the victim, a married woman employed as a sweeper at the same company, on the pretext of securing her a better job. It is further alleged that the applicant took the victim to Surprise Hotel, where he showed her Aadhar card to the receptionist and booked a room. Once inside, the applicant allegedly spiked the victim’s cold drink, rendering her unconscious, and subsequently committed rape upon her. The victim did not disclose the incident immediately due to fear but later reported it to the police, leading to the registration of the FIR on 14.12.2023. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations are baseless. It has been contended that the victim was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and voluntarily accompanied him to the hotel. The defense has emphasized that the victim, in her statement before the trial court as PW-1, admitted that she willingly 1 entered the hotel, provided her Aadhar card at the reception, and stayed in the room with the applicant for nearly two hours. Furthermore, the victim’s cross-examination revealed contradictions in her testimony, as she initially stated that the incident occurred on 29th October but later claimed it was on 29th September. Additionally, the medical examination was conducted nearly three months after the alleged incident, and the supplementary medical report confirms that no dead or live spermatozoa were found in the vaginal smear and that the hymen was already torn. The learned counsel also submits that there is no independent witness to the alleged incident, and the hotel register merely confirms their presence in the hotel but does not indicate any forceful act. The applicant has no prior criminal record, is the sole earning member of his family, and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. 4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the applicant are serious and that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. clearly support the charges. It has been submitted that the victim, in her initial complaint, stated that she was deceived into believing she would meet higher officials for a job interview. 5. The prosecution further argues that the hotel receptionist, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., confirmed that the applicant and the victim checked in together, and the register entry corroborates their presence. It has been contended that the medical examination, although delayed, does not negate the possibility of the offense, and the victim’s fear and hesitation in reporting the matter should not be held against her. The prosecution asserts that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a high likelihood that he will influence the victim, tamper with evidence, or abscond. 6. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties and after perusal of the records, certain crucial aspects require consideration. 7. Firstly, the victim's statements contain contradictions regarding the date of the incident, which raises doubts about the accuracy of her allegations. Secondly, the medical examination was conducted three months after the alleged incident, and the absence of any biological evidence weakens the prosecution’s case. Thirdly, the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant to the hotel, provided her Aadhar card at the reception, and did not raise an alarm or report any coercion at the time, which suggests that the relationship was consensual. Fourthly, the prosecution has not provided any direct evidence of force or coercion, apart from the victim’s statement, which itself contains inconsistencies.; and fifthly, the applicant has no previous criminal history, and the prosecution has not established any concrete apprehension of him tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses. 8. Considering these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 379 of 2024, upon furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 26.03.2025 NR/