Omveer Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2023 Supreme(UK) 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Omveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 101 of 2023
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Important Points

The decision highlights the consideration of the co-accused's bail and the victim's lack of support for the prosecution case as key factors in granting bail to the applicant.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.342, S.376(d), S.120(b)
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT : S.3, S.4, S.16, S.17

Headnote

Bail - Release on Bail - Summary

Fact of the Case:

Applicant Omveer Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 31 of 2021, under Sections 342, 376-D, 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 16, 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun.

Finding of the Court:

The Court, after considering the entirety of facts, concluded that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Issues: The issues involved the consideration of the co-accused being granted bail, the examination of the victim at trial, and her lack of support for the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail, and the victim's lack of support for the prosecution case.

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.

Advocates appeared:
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Omveer Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 31 of 2021, under Sections 342, 376-D, 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 16, 17 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

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

3. It is argued that co-accused has already been granted bail. The victim has already been examined at trial. She has not supported the prosecution case. These facts have not been denied by the learned State counsel.

4. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. The bail application is allowed.

6. 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.