IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 1st Bail Application No. 794 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ashwani Kumar .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 143/2010 U/s 366, 506, 368, 376 IPC, PS Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Hardwar. ___________________________________________________________________ September 8, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the complainant. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant argued that as per the medical report, the victim Km. Pragati is more than 18 years old and no spermatozoa either dead or alive was found. He further argued that she had gone along with the applicant as per her own consent and remained with the applicant for nearly 24 hours and during that period she stayed at the densely populated places like Haridwar, Roorkee etc. He further argued that the victim was recovered by the police from Bahadrabad tiraha, which is densely populated place, but she neither made any complaint to anybody nor made any hue and cry. He also submitted that on 22.4.2010, when the victim was recovered and thereafter her statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded wherein she has stated that the applicant did not commit any bad work with her. Opposing the bail application, learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the victim was given in the supardgi of her father on 24.4.2010 i.e. after two days of her recovery and thereafter she has given the correct statement and stated that applicant has committed rape with her. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record; in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the victim has given two statements which are contradictory to each other and, therefore, at this stage benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the applicant. Hence, the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Ashwani Kumar be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of JM, Roorkee. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 8.9.2010 PRABODH 2