RAMPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant in CRLA No. 100/2024, Ms. Manisha Bhandari, petitioner, party-in-person in WPPIL No. 114/2024, Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti and Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsels for the victim.

(2.) The matter was heard yesterday and the victim was present and fervently pleaded to the Court to positively consider the bail application of the appellant/ applicant. On interaction with the victim, it has come out that the victim is presently working in Dehradun and living alone to financially support herself, and also finance the legal battle on behalf of her husband, who is undergoing incarceration. The victim claims that she is working as a housemaid and earning Rs.12000.00. She claims that she, and the appellant/ applicant are natives of a far off Village Jakhol in District Uttarkashi. That the trauma she is undergoing, is on account of the application of the law, and she is reduced to a hapless position, on account of the judgment of conviction and sentencing of her husband by the Trial Court.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant, i.e. the victim's father, that on 1/1/2022, the victim had left the house at 10:00 P.M, stating that she would be going to her grandfather's house and sleep there, but it came to be known in the morning that she never reached her grandfather's house, and that people submitted that the accused had come to the village with his car, and on that basis it was suspected that the victim had absconded with the appellant/ applicant. The jurisdictional police registered Crime No. 01/2022 and commenced investigation, and the victim was found in the company of the accused, near Arakot Bazar Bridge, and the appellant/ applicant was arrested on 23/1/2022; that the victim was medically examined by the Investigating Officer. The victim's date of birth was affirmed on the basis of birth certificate obtained from the school, and the charge-sheet came to be filed into the Court on 25/2/2022, charging the appellant/ applicant for offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Sec. 5(l) of the POCSO Act.