HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 22nd October, 2008 Bail Application No. 479 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Sumit Kumar S/o Sri Ram Kishor Thakur …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________ Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 U/s 306 I.P.C. Police Station Ranikhet District Almora With Bail Application No. 760 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Sumit Kumar S/o Sri Ram Kishor Thakur …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________ Case Crime No. 299 of 2008 U/s 376 I.P.C. Police Station Ranikhet District Almora Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. P.S. Adhikari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State; Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the complainant; and perused the record. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the girl was to reach at about 11:00 a.m. on 25/03/2008 at Ranikhet market to meet her father; when she did not reach in market at about 1:00 p.m., her search was made and thereafter her body was found crushed by the train near Chandra Bihar railway station in Delhi; the suicidal notes did not reveal that the girl was instigated by the accused/applicant in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh and another Vs. Gayatribai, 1995 SCC (Cri) p/1157; Netai Dutta Vs. state of West Bengal, 2005 AIR SCW p/1326; Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 AIR SCW p/3202; the only connecting evidence with regard to the rape is the suicidal note claiming to be written by the deceased in which no date and time of the rape has been indicated; the note itself reveals that the girl has been raped sometimes before the suicide, it may be days or month; there are two suicidal notes written & the writing on both these notes is different; the accused/applicant was on leave from 10/03/2008 to 30/03/2008 & he left the station on 08/03/2008 by the train, the ticket of which is annexed; the leave of the accused/applicant ended on 30/03/2008, the ticket of which has also been annexed as annexure 5 to the bail petition, so he was not present either at Delhi or at Ranikhet; the last call which was received on the mobile of the deceased if of 25/03/2008 at about 10:48 a.m.; according to the prosecution, the deceased was at Ranikhet at that time; there is not evidence to connect that the accused/applicant came to Ranikhet on 25/03/2008; the deceased was not aware about Delhi or she has not visited Delhi or she did not know the places in Delhi; the prosecution could not demonstrate the call record received on the telephones of the accused/applicant or the deceased that no call was made after from 10/04/2008 as stated also; no evidence was demonstrated that any other persons was sent by the accused/applicant at Ranikhet & the deceased was brought to Delhi; the fact that the vaginal smear which was collected from the body of the deceased was not compared with the semen of the accused/applicant; the fact that the Investigating Officer S.I. Mohan Chandra Joshi went to Samastipur, Bihar for investigation to ascertain the fact as to whether the applicant remained in his house from 10th March, 2008 to 27th March, 2008 or not; he found the applicant was not married; annexure 2 and 3 of the bail petition No.760 of 2008 clearly reveals that the applicant remained in his house; and the prosecution could not connect the accused/applicant in the commission of the offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I find that it is a fit case for bail. Let the accused/applicant be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Almora. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not prejudice the prosecution during the trial. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 22.10.2008 Shiv