IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.169 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Abdul Salam ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 19, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.114 of 2008 Under Sections 366/376/342 of IPC P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. Urgency Application No.1038 of 2010 is allowed. In brief, the prosecution story is that in the night of 28/29.5.2008 applicant Abdul Salam enticed away his daughter Afsana Khatoon from his house. He also alleged that the co-accused Abdul Kalam, Abdul Samad, Masoom Ali and Sajid Ali were also involved in hatching the conspiracy of enticing away his daughter. With the same averments, father of the victim Sri Wahid Ali, lodged the FIR at P.S. Patelnagar on 1.6.2008 at 09:30 AM. The victim was recovered on 1.6.2008 and thereafter her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate in which she stated that the applicant Abdul Salam and co-accused Abdul Samad and Abdul Kalam committed rape upon her forcibly against her wishes. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case and the offences in which the applicant has been sent to jail are not made out against him. Contrary to this, learned brief holder for the State has stated that it a case of gang rape and in the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim Shabana Khatoon has specifically stated that Abdul Salam (present applicant), Abdul Samad and Abdul Kalam committed rape upon her upon forcibly against her wishes. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record and on perusing the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim and looking into the seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.03.2010 RG