IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.619 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Kailash Gujjar S/o Shaukeen Singh, R/o Kadapur, PS Amroha, Dehat, Distt. Jyotibafulenagar ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.18 of 2010, U/s 363/366/376/120-B IPC, P.S. Bhimtal, Distt. Nainital Dated: July 01, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Pant, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that on 2.5.2010 between 2-3 PM, when the complainant Ramesh Chandra had gone in the Government Hospital in connection with the medical check up of his mother, at that time the applicant/accused Kailash along with Sukhram Singh, Deepa and her husband had taken the complainant’s daughter Km. Sonu by enticing. The date of birth of the victim was mentioned as 1.8.1994 in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that the victim was recovered on 7.5.2010 from the possession of the present applicant and her medical examination was also conducted at B.D. Pandey Hospital on 8.5.2010, where the medical officer came to the conclusion that there is evidence of sexual intercourse. In the statement of the victim-recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, she also disclosed that the applicant/accused committed rape with her against her wishes. Thus, on a perusal of the date of birth certificate, it reveals that the victim is aged about 15 years and 9 months i.e. she was minor on the date of incident and she was enticed away by the applicant along with co-accused and thereafter, the applicant/accused committed rape with her forcibly against her wishes and this fact has also been stated by the victim in her statement recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and also considering the fact that the victim is minor i.e. 15 years and nine months of age and the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 01.07.2010 Rajeev Dang