Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 254 of 2024, under Sections 376 (2)(f), 376 (AB) of the IPC, Section 3a/4 (2), 5 (M) (N)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution, it is a case of sexual assault by a father on his daughter of three and a half years of age. The informant is the mother. According to the FIR, the informant and the applicant were married in the year 2017. They had some family disputes. The FIR records that the informant was not on job due to which the applicant would taunt her. He would not fulfil her demands. On 29.03.2024, the informant alongwith the victim came to her father’s house. On 03.04.2024, in the night, suddenly, the victim while asleep started crying and told that she would not go to her father. He is not a good man. He troubles her. When questioned, she revealed that the applicant would kiss on her lips, legs and stomach and would also insert his fingers on her private parts. She revealed the incident quite in detail, which is recorded in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false case. The applicant and the informant both have a matrimonial discord; the informant has made the life of the applicant miserable; on 29.03.2024, the informant came to her father’s house, but she did not report the matter promptly thereafter. On 03.04.2024, the incident was allegedly surfaced. The victim was medically examined on 07.04.2024, but it does not support the prosecution case because the injuries could not have been caused prior to 29.03.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would argued that, in fact, the victim has some skin problem and she was also suffering with piles. The injuries might have been caused due to those reasons. Learned counsel would also submit that there are other children in the family. They have not stated anything against the applicant; they all have in one tone stated that the applicant is a good person; the informant is quite influential. They have manipulated the medical examination report.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that the case is quite natural. The victim is a young girl of three and a half years. Both the parties are educated and well established in the society. In such a situation, it is argued that the mother would not use her young daughter as a tool to falsely implicate her husband. It is argued that the hymen of the young child was found torn, which in natural course could not have been done. It is only due to the act that is committed by the applicant.
7. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during investigation.
8. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
9. The victim has been interrogated during investigation. She has stated as to how the applicant would kiss her and touch her private parts. Once she has stated that the applicant would lay her on a floor and touch her private parts.
10. The informant has also stated that once she has noticed redness on the private part of the victim, but she did not took it seriously. The doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the victim, has stated that the hymen of the victim was torn and there was swelling and redness in her private parts.
11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
12. The bail application is rejected.
