IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.133 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Pan Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.371 of 2009, U/s 376/506 IPC and 3(1)(13) SC/ST Act, P.S. Dhumakot, Distt. Pauri Garhwal Dated: March 12, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that the applicant- accused Pan Singh and co-accused Santan Singh committed rape with the victim Km. Sangita against her wishes, who was aged about 14 years. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by the father of victim on 25.12.2009 at P.S. Dhumakot. After that the victim was medically been examined and as per the medical report, the victim’s age has been opined as below 14 years. The statement of victim was also recorded by the I.O. u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which has been filed along with the counter affidavit filed by the State. In that statement also, the victim has specifically stated that the applicant/accused committed rape with her for four times while the co- accused Santan Singh committed rape with the victim for two times against her wishes and also threatened her for her life in case she would disclose this fact to any one. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Brief Holder argued that it is a matter of gang rape and the applicant-accused along with co-accused committed rape with the victim who is a scheduled caste girl forcibly against her wishes. The averments made in the FIR also gets corroboration from the medical report as well as from the statement of victim recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and also considering the fact that it is a matter of gang rape and the applicant committed rape with a scheduled caste girl and who was minor i.e. below 14 years of age, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.03.2010 Rajeev Dang