IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.160 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE 1. Abdul Samad 2. Abdul Kalam 3. Sajid Ali ..….Applicants (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 applicants and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. Urgency Application No.1037 of 2010 is allowed. Counter affidavit filed by the State be taken on record. In brief, the prosecution story is that in the night of 28/29.5.2008 co-accused Abdul Salam enticed away his daughter Afsana Khatoon from his house. He also alleged that the present applicants 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 applicants-Abdul Samad and Abdul Kalam and co-accused Abdul Salam committed rape upon her forcibly against her wishes. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the said case and the offences in which the applicants have been sent to jail are not made out against them. 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 Samad, Abdul Kalam (present applicants) and co- accused Abdul Salam committed rape upon her forcibly against her wishes. However, the victim has not made any allegation against the applicant Sajid Ali. 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 applicants-Abdul Samad and Abdul Kalam does not deserve bail. Their bail applications are liable to be rejected and are rejected accordingly. However, as no allegation has been made against the applicant Sajid Ali by the victim Shabana Khatoon in the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., he is entitled for bail. Without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant Sajid Ali deserves bail at this stage. Bail application of applicant-Sajid Ali is allowed. Let the applicant-Sajid Ali be released on bail on his executing personal bond and also on furnishing two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Dehradun. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.03.2010 RG