ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State and Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.