SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(UK) 489

SUDHANSHU DHULIA
SOUKEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Applicant :Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Rautela, Govt. Adv. assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

Heard Mr. Mohd. Azim, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

2. This is the first bail application. The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 19 of 2016, which has been registered under Sections 363/365/366A/376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar.

3. The allegation against the present applicant is of rape. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the victim in her statement under Sections 161 as well as 164 CrPC has categorically stated that she is in love with the present applicant and they entered into physical relation with full consent.

4. Though apparently the age of the prosecutrix/victim as per the prosecution is 16 years but considering the age of the applicant i.e. 23 years and the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

5. Let the applicant be enl


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top