The lack of support from the victim and absence of forensic, electronic, or biological evidence can be influential factors in granting bail in criminal cases.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the applicant, who was in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, based on the lack of support from the victim and absence of forensic, electronic, or biological evidence against the applicant.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant was in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim did not support the prosecution case at trial and was declared hostile. There was no forensic, electronic, or biological evidence against the applicant.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lack of support from the victim and the absence of forensic, electronic, or biological evidence made the case fit for bail, and therefore granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues involved the lack of support from the victim, absence of forensic, electronic, or biological evidence, and the applicant's request for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of support from the victim and the absence of forensic, electronic, or biological evidence, which led to the conclusion that the case was fit for bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Pawan Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.326 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4 and 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim has not supported the prosecution case at trial and she has been declared hostile. It is also submitted that there is no forensic, electronic or biological evidence against the applicant.

4. Learned State counsel admits the factual aspects, as argued on behalf of the applicant. It makes out the case for bail.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document