Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Guddu S/o Narottam, - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1228 of 2020
Decided on : 17-06-2021
Bail – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 161, 164 and 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 363, 366 and 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sec 5(1)/6 – Allegation of informant that her daughter was abducted by the accused – Sexual intercourse with her – Bail application – Contradiction regarding age of victim in various document such as Transfer Certificate, Ration Card, Pariwar Register and Aadhar Card of victim – Victim herself eloped with the applicant and visited number of places and number of states and due to the relation, she became pregnant – On the date of alleged incident, victim was major – Applicant deserves bail at this stage – Bail granted with conditions – Application allowed.
(Paras 2, 4, 7 and 9)
tekur & n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 161] 164 ,oa 439 & Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 363] 366 ,oa 376 & ;kSu vijk/kksa ls cPpksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2012] /kkjk 5¼1½@6 & lwpuknkrk dk vfHkdFku dh mldh iq=h dk vigj.k vfHk;qDr }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk & mlds lkFk ySafxd lEHkksx & tekur izkFkZuk i= & fofHkUu nLrkostksa tSls LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i=] jk'ku dkMZ] ifjokj jftLVj o ihfM+rk ds vk/kkj dkMZ esa ihfM+rk dh vk;q ds lEcU/k esa fojks/kkHkkl & ihfM+rk Lo;a vfHk;qDr ds lkFk Hkkx xbZ Fkh & vkSj vusdksa LFkku vkSj jkT;ksa esa ?kweh Fkh ftlds dkj.k og xHkZorh gks xbZ Fkh & dfFkr ?kVuk dh frfFk dks] og o;Ld Fkh & izkFkhZ bl Lrj ij tekur dk ik= gS & tekur 'krks± ds lkFk iznÙk & izkFkZuk i= LohÑrA ¼izLrj 2] 4] 7 ,oa 9½
JUDGMENT :
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
This bail application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.106 of 2019, registered with Police Station-Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 5 (l),/6 of the of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. On 14.05.2019, the informant lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant-accused stating that one Omkar was residing in his house on rent with his son Roop Ram and his son-in-law Guddu, the present applicant-accused. On 12.04.2019, his daughter (victim), aged about 17 years, went to bring medicine with her mother. Due to crowd, she was separated from her mother. She was searched. On enquiry, it came to know that Guddu had taken her with him. On 10.9.2019, the victim was recovered along with the present applicant. Her medical examination was conducted. The statements of the victim were recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed.
3. Heard Mr. M.K. Ray, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, learned Deputy Advocate General alongwith Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.
4. Mr. M.K. Ray, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in this matter; the victim has stated that she has attained her majority; she was fallen in love with the applicant; according to the prosecution case, the alleged victim herself eloped with the applicant; she visited number of places and number of States and due to the relation with the applicant, she became pregnant. He further argued that there are several contradictions regarding the age of the alleged victim; as per the prosecution case, on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was 17 years 10 months and 27 days; the age of the victim is relied by the prosecution on a certificate, issued by the Principal of the Primary School, Ahrola, Nawabganj, Bareilly, which was based on a Transfer Certificate; the copy of the said Transfer Certificate has not been filed; as per Adhaar Card of the alleged victim, her date of birth is 05.04.2000;
according to Ration Card, her date of birth is 01.01.2000 and as per the extract of the Parivar Register, she was born in the year, 1997; therefore, on the date of the alleged incident, the alleged victim was major. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history; he is a permanent resident of District Nainital; he is in custody since 10.09.2019 and charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he submitted that there is some contradiction regarding age of the victim and the applicant has no criminal history.
6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
