IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 18th day of November 2009 Ist Bail Application No.580 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Moru Mandal S/o Sri Kartik Mandal ….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: November 18, 2009 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of F.I.R. No.105 of 2009 Under Section 376 IPC P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 8.3.2009 at about at 10 PM complainant Laxmi Gaeen lodged an FIR against the applicant with the allegations that her daughter Sumiti Gaeen aged about 11 years were alone in the house then the applicant Maru Mandal at about 5 PM came to her house and committed rape with her daughter. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has committed no crime at all and has falsely been implicated in this crime due to property dispute. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, statement of the victim Sumiti Gaeen recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., is annexed as Annexure CA-2 in which she has stated that on 8.3.2009 the applicant Maru Mandal came to her house and caught hold her and committed bad work with her. At that time she was alone in her house. The applicant threatended her that if she would disclose this incident to anyone then he will kill her. Her clothes were become bloodstained. Thereafter the accused ran away from her house. She has further stated that her mother saw that her clothes had become bloodstained. Learned Brief Holder for the State has submitted that the victim was medically examined on the same day at 10:30 PM and her X-ray was also conducted. As per the opinion of Medical Officer, age of victim was about 12-14 years. It is further submitted that the victim was minor on the date of incident and the applicant committed rape with her against her wishes when she was alone in her house. After considering all the facts and circumstances and hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the contents of FIR and the statement of victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.11.2009 RG