Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Bail for 73-Year-Old Accused in Minor Rape Case
The Uttarakhand High Court has firmly dismissed a bail application filed by a 73-year-old man, Usman Khan, who stands accused of raping a 12-year-old Dalit girl in Nainital district last year. A single bench presided over by Justice Alok Mahra delivered the ruling on Friday, having reserved its decision following a hearing earlier in the week.
Details of the Alleged Crime and Legal Proceedings
The incident traces back to April 12 of the previous year, when Usman Khan, a contractor, allegedly lured the Class 7 student under false pretenses and committed the rape. The survivor disclosed the traumatic event to her parents on April 30, prompting them to file a formal complaint.
An FIR was subsequently registered under multiple legal provisions, including:
- Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for raping a girl under 16 years of age
- Section 351(1) of the BNS for criminal intimidation
- Relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
- Provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Community Unrest and Forensic Evidence
The case ignited significant unrest in the local area, with mobs vandalizing shops and heightening communal tensions. In a notable response, prominent Muslim leaders publicly expelled the accused from their community, reflecting widespread condemnation.
Usman Khan has remained in custody since his arrest, with the prosecution building a strong case against him. During the trial, crucial forensic evidence was presented, including a hair strand belonging to the survivor that was recovered from the accused's car on May 4. DNA analysis and medical examination reports, discussed in a hearing on September 19, corroborated the prosecution's allegations, strengthening the case.
Arguments in the Bail Plea and Court's Decision
In his bail application, Usman Khan contended that the survivor's statement had been recorded six times with inconsistencies, suggesting potential flaws in the testimony. However, the state government vigorously opposed the plea, arguing that several witnesses had already provided their accounts and emphasizing the need to expedite the trial process.
The High Court, after thorough consideration, sided with the prosecution, dismissing the bail plea and underscoring the gravity of the charges and the evidence presented.
