2025:UHC:3592 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 178 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Sawej Ali alias Lakki’ S/o Javed is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 21.04.2024 bearing FIR No. 279 of 2024, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated by the victim for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that as per the victim herself there was a friendship in between the applicant and the victim and they have known to each other through instagram. He further submits that whatever be the relation were developed in between both of them that was consensual and the victim admitted in her statement that she was in live-in relationship with the applicant. 5. Apart from this, he submits that as per the statement of the victim she was fully aware about the religion of the applicant but she gives a contradictory statement that the applicant has not disclosed this fact that he belongs to the different religion. 6. Apart from this he submits that on close scrutiny of the medical report, which was carried out on 26.04.2024 she was not pregnant at that time, which is corroborated by the Doctor in her statement. Apart from this, he submits that the chargesheet has been filed therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. Finally, he concluded his argument by saying that there is a great contradiction on the statement of the prosecutrix herself and there are no ingredients which constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 8. He further submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.05.2024. 2025:UHC:3592 9. Learned counsel Mr. Mohd. Safdar also further argued that the applicant is only 28 years old whereas the prosecutrix is a married lady, aged about 36 years old and having one child and there is no question of giving a false promise of marriage. He submits that this is a glaring example of false implication of the present applicant. 10. Mr. Mohd. Safdar also argued that the Coordinate Bench granted interim bail to the applicant and the same be made absolute. 11. He further submits that all the star witnesses have been examined, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail there is no any question of tampering with the evidence. 12. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A., vehemently oppose the bail application by submitting that the victim corroborated the allegation as alleged and fully supports the case of the prosecution. 13. Apart from this, he submits that the medical report also supports the case of the prosecution and last menstrual period was 18.04.2024 and when the victim was examined as PW1 she stated that in the month of April 2024 the applicant forcibly make physical relationship with the victim due to which she became pregnant having 8 months pregnancy. 14. Learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal on written instructions submits that due to this pregnancy the victim gave birth to a female child, who is at present 3 months 15 days old and the birth of child itself prove the statement of the prosecutrix, which she has specifically stated in paragraph 5 in her statement recorded on 12.12.2024. 15. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further after gone through with the medical report as well as the statement of the victim recorded as PW1, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Interim bail granted earlier is vacated with a direction to the applicant to surrender immediately. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 07.05.2025 PR 2025:UHC:3592