Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2023 in Case Crime No. 99 of 2023, under Section 376 (2) (f), 376 (n),
352, 342, 354-C IPC, and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat. He has sought his
release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the applicant raped the informant on 22.09.2023 when her mother and stepmother were not at home. The applicant is
stepfather of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are contradictions in the statements of the informant with regard to the place of incident.
He would also argue that there are also contradictions as to where the step-brothers of the informant were at the time of the incident. There is no
video. FIR records and the informant had stated during investigation that she resisted to the act of the applicant, but the medical examination report
does not find any injury. The informant during investigation has stated that she has raised alarm, but nobody came to rescue her and there is no other
witness also. The reasons for lodging the FIR are quite distinct at various places. He would refer the statement of other witnesses. It is also argued
that the applicant was not at his residence. At the alleged time of incident, he was on job.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the informant has supported the prosecution case during investigation or trial.
6. 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.
7. The informant is stepdaughter of the applicant. According to the FIR, on the date of incident, the applicant sent her mother and her stepmother at
some other place, locked her stepbrothers in a room and thereafter, raped her. This is what she has stated at all places. Reading a line in the cross
examination of the PW1, the informant, it is argued that there is contraction with regard to the location of stepbrothers of the informant. But in the
examination-in-chief, PW1, the informant has stated about the location of her stepbrothers, when she tells that they were locked in another room by
the applicant.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is rejected.
