IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the November 6, 2009 Criminal Bail Application No. 624 of 2009 Order on the bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Rakesh S/o Om Prakash R/o Gurpuri, Police Station Civil Line District Badaun, U.P. … Applicant Vs State of Uttarakhand … Opposite Party -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arising out of F.I.R. No. 140 of 2009 Under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. Police Station Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar By the court Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J The applicant has applied for bail in F.I.R. No. 140 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C., Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Heard Sri K.S. Bora and Sri M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The prosecutrix – Km. Geeta in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that it was accused – Rakesh and Kashi who committed rape upon her continuously for a period of one month. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused – Kashi has been granted bail. He has invited my attention towards the bail order of Kashi, which indicates that it was the accused – Rakesh only, who committed rape as per the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I think, learned Judge while granting bail to Kashi has lost the sight to the annexure No. 3 to the bail application and this statement is under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and it is specifically mentioned in the statement that the accused Rakesh and Kashi who subjected the prosecutrix to rape continuously for a period of one month. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I think, it is not a fit case for bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.11.2009 ASWAL