2025:UHC:2851 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1196 of 2024 Manoj Rawat …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in respect of FIR No. 04 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant, Manoj Rawat, aged about 25 years, has been in judicial custody since 2nd May 2024. 2. A FIR was lodged on 11th January 2024, alleging that the informant’s minor daughter went missing from home on 9th January 2024 at about 4:00 AM. It was further stated that the victim had previously left home on several occasions. 3. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 365 IPC. However, based on the subsequent statements of the victim recorded during the course of investigation under Sections 161 CrPC, additional 1 2025:UHC:2851 offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act were invoked against the present applicant. 4. It is alleged that the victim and her mother were residing in Dharchula, where the accused lived in a rented room directly below their residence. He would frequently visit their home and was purportedly involved in a relationship with the victim’s mother. 5. The victim stated that the accused had, on several occasions, tried to establish physical contact with her, and on one occasion, when her mother was not at home, he fed her chowmein after which she lost consciousness. Upon regaining her senses, she experienced pain, swelling, and bleeding in her private parts and saw the accused sitting in front of her. These statements formed the basis for the addition of the offences under Section 376 IPC and the POCSO Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It was contended that there is no direct allegation of force, coercion, or threat, nor any immediate complaint made by the victim after the alleged occurrence. It was further submitted that the statement under Section 164 CrPC came much later and is uncorroborated by any medical or forensic evidence. 7. The counsel submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, that he was not found in the company of the victim, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time. It was argued that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the trial and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence 2 2025:UHC:2851 witnesses. 8. The applicant further alleged that the victim was recovered from Champawat district, whereas the accused was arrested later, on 2nd May 2024. That there is no relation between the victim’s leaving her house on multiple occasions and the alleged offence as a result of her being missing. 9. Additionally, the medical examination of the victim was also conducted on the same day. As per the applicant, the medical report does not establish any conclusive evidence of sexual assault. There is also a significant delay between the alleged incident and the medical examination, which, according to the applicant, undermines the credibility of the allegation. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC is categorical and implicates the present applicant. It was argued that the victim is a minor, and her statement reveals a pattern of repeated inappropriate conduct by the applicant culminating in rape. 11. It was also submitted that the statement of the victim is supported by statements of other witnesses, including her mother, Taranum, and Chhaya, recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 12. It is contended on behalf of the State that even though the FIR was initially lodged for the offence of kidnapping, this does not mitigate the gravity of the allegations now levelled against the applicant. 13. The learned Special Judge had rightly rejected the bail application after considering the 3 2025:UHC:2851 material on record, and that the release of the applicant at this stage may pose a threat to the prosecution witnesses. 14. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the records. 15. From the record, it is evident that the FIR was initially lodged only for kidnapping, and it was only after a considerable lapse of time that the graver offences were added. While the allegations in the victim’s statement are serious, they are not contemporaneous with the occurrence, and the delay in medical examination further raises concerns about evidentiary consistency. The case, as it stands, is one that is primarily based on oral statements recorded much after the alleged incident. 16. More importantly, certain developments during trial proceedings raise pertinent doubts requiring cautious judicial consideration. PW-2, Dr. Lavi Punetha, who examined the victim, deposed before the learned trial court that when the victim was first brought for medical examination, she expressly declined to undergo the procedure. This reluctance or refusal, at a crucial initial stage, creates a vacuum in contemporaneous medical corroboration. 17. Furthermore, PW-5, the mother of the victim, disclosed in her deposition that her daughter was in a consensual relationship with a person named Badal, and that she had previously conceived from that relationship. This is not a mere extraneous claim, but is partially supported by the medical report, which indicates that the hymen was “old torn with healed 4 2025:UHC:2851 margins,” thereby suggesting the absence of recent forcible sexual activity. The conjoint reading of these depositions and the medical opinion casts a shadow over the State’s narrative and weakens the chain of events sought to be established. 18. These developments highlight material gaps in the State’s case. The precise timeline of the incident remains uncertain, and the evolving allegations necessitate that greater clarity be sought during the trial. 19. It is not the province of this Court to evaluate evidence in detail at the bail stage; however, the material inconsistencies and contradictions on record weigh in favour of granting liberty to the applicant, particularly when the possibility of prolonged incarceration looms and there is no allegation of any threat or inducement by the applicant post-arrest. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, has held that the seriousness of an offence is no doubt an important consideration, but it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail where the material on record does not prima facie support the charge and where there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. Similarly, in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Court underscored the need to balance the presumption of innocence with the requirement to ensure justice. 21. In the present matter, the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. He is a young man of 25 years and has been in custody for over two months. 5 2025:UHC:2851 The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. The apprehension that he may influence witnesses can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 22. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the delay in lodging the material statements, the inconsistencies emerging from medical and testimonial evidence, the applicant’s clean antecedents, and the fact that the trial may take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 23. Let the applicant, Manoj Rawat, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall: (i) Not evade the trial and remain present before the trial court as and when required; (ii) Not tamper with evidence in any manner; and (iii) Not influence, induce, or intimidate any witness; 24. In case of breach of any of these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail. 25. The bail application is accordingly allowed. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 09.04.2025 SB 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.23 11:56:31 +05'30'