Ikhlakh Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Heard Mr. Subhra Rastogi, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.S.Adhikari, AGA for the State.

Applicant- Ikhlakh Khan, who is in custody in case crime no. 421 of 2018, under Sections 377 and 506 of IPC and Section 5(1) 6 & 3 (a) 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station- Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail.

This is the 3rd Bail Application. The 1st and 2nd bail applications of the applicant were dismissed on merit on 31.01.2018 and 08.11.2019

respectively.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the victim of the instant case used to molest the daughter of the applicant. He did so on

22.11.2007 and thereafter, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 23.11.2007. Thereafter, the applicant has been falsely implicated in

this case. When no action was taken on the application of the applicant dated 14.07.2018, the matter was reported to the Police.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the grounds, which have been raised, now, had already been taken by the

applicant when the 2nd bail application was considered. Three witnesses have been examined in the case, including the victim. All of them support the

prosecution case. There is no reason to grant bail at this stage.

This Court has considered this case on merits on 31.01.2018, when the first bail application of the applicant was rejected, the Court observed in the

bail that it is not a solitary incident but there have been repeated acts by the appellant. The Court observed as hereunder:-

“It is not a case of single act of attempt. The victim, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code, has categorically stated that many

times, the applicant had unnatural sexual intercourse with him and the applicant had threatened him, not to disclose it to anyone, otherwise, he would

cause harm to the sister of the victim. Victim has also stated that the local people of the vicinity had also settled the dispute once. In fact, the first

informant had, in his statement given to the police, stated that once the matter got settled by the persons of the local vicinity and the applicant gave in

writing that he would not repeat such an act in future. A copy of the written apology has been annexed in the counter affidavit filed by the State as

Annexure no. CA-6.

The first informant also stated to the Investigating Officer that his wife is under tremendous mental pressure, due to what has happened to her son and

she insisted that they should leave the vicinity.â€​

With regard to the report lodged by the applicant against the victim of this case, this Court in para 7 of the bail order dated 08.11.2019, observed as

hereunder:-

“What is argued is that the daughter of the applicant on 22.11.2019 lodged a report against the victim. But learned counsel for the applicant could

not show the name of the victim in the complaint which has been filed in the additional affidavit. What is being argued is that a report of the incident

dated 22.11.2017 was sent to Senior Superintendant of Police by post on 14.07.2018 by the daughter of the applicant against the victim. FIR in the

instant case was lodged on 06.06.2018. This argument has no force at all.â€​

Alongwith the bail application, Annexure-4, copies of amicable settlements have been filed by the applicant and in para 6 of it, reference has been

made to it. Although, it is argued that the applicant had signed only one settlement dated 23.11.2017. But, it is nowhere stated as such in the bail

application. What is stated is that the other settlements are true copies. It means that all the settlements are genuine but not all are original. In

settlements dated 21.11.2017 and 29.11.2017, the applicant has admitted his guilt. The settlement dated 23.11.2017 if read alongwith settlement dated

21.11.2017 and 29.11.2017 supports the prosecution case. It supports the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code, that the

applicant had committed unnatural sex with him many times, but it was settled in the past. The victim has narrated the story in the trial also. Much

deeper scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage.

Suffice is to say, no new ground has been shown, which may entitle the applicant to be released on bail. Hence, the 3rd bail application is also liable

to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.