Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Sumit - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2821 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Pretrial Release
Act Referred
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT : S.3, S.4
Headnote
Bail - Release of Applicant-Sumit - The court granted bail to the applicant, who was in judicial custody in a case involving Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, based on the victim's lack of support for the prosecution case during trial.
Fact of the Case:
Applicant-Sumit is in judicial custody in a case involving Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The victim did not support the prosecution case at trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim did not support the prosecution case and stated that she did not get her medical examination. Based on this, the court concluded that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Issues: The main issue was the applicant's eligibility for bail in a case involving serious charges under Section 376 IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the victim's lack of support for the prosecution case and her statement regarding the medical examination.
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.
Pawan Mishra, Advocate, B.P.S. Mer, Advocate
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Sumit is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 245 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun. 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 victim has not supported the prosecution case at trial. Certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded during trial has been filed.
4. Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions twice on the matter. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim is 14 years of age, but he admits that as per the certified copy of the statement, she has not supported the prosecution case and in fact, she has stated that she did not get her medical examination.
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.
