The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution case, including the absence of incriminating documents recovered during the investigation, can influence the court's decision to grant bail in cases involving sexual offences.

Headnote:
Bail - Sexual Offences - The court granted bail to the applicant, who was in judicial custody under Section 313 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, due to lack of evidence supporting the prosecution case.
Fact of the Case:

Applicant Mohd. Shakir sought release on bail while in judicial custody under Section 313 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in FIR No.31 of 2022, Police Station Kelakhera, District- Udham Singh Nagar.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim did not support the prosecution case and that there were no documents recovered during the investigation suggesting that the applicant committed the offence in his hospital. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution case, particularly the absence of documents recovered during the investigation implicating the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution case, as well as the absence of documents recovered during the investigation suggesting the applicant's involvement in the alleged offence.
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 to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Mohd. Shakir is in judicial custody in FIR No.31 of 2022, under Section 313 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kelakhera, District- Udham Singh Nagar. 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.

4. In this case, the allegations were that in the hospital of the applicant, the foetus of the victim was got aborted. On 16.12.2022, the Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to which documents have been recovered during investigation suggesting that the applicant committed offence in his hospital?

5. Today learned State Counsel would submit that there is no such document.

6. 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.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. 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