Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Riyujul - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 726 of 2023
Decided On : 21-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, Respondent A.G.A.

The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the support of the prosecution's case and the criminal history of the applicant.

Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Regular bail granted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed for regular bail in connection with a case involving charges under Sections 363, 354, 354 D, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecutrix, aged about 14 years, did not support the case of the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the submissions of both parties, found no reason to keep the applicant in custody indefinitely and granted bail without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant deserved bail at this stage despite the serious charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of support from the prosecutrix and the absence of a criminal history for the applicant, leading to the conclusion that there was no reason to keep the applicant behind bars indefinitely.
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 :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.115 of 2023, registered at police station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 354, 354 D, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Charge-sheet was filed after completion of the investigation. Statement of the prosecutrix, (PW1), aged about 14 years, has been recorded.

2. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate, has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is in judicial custody since 21.02.2023. He has no criminal history, and, he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar. He contended that the alleged victim (PW1) did not support the case of the prosecution.

3. On the other hand, Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. has opposed the bail application. However, she conceded that the prosecutrix (PW1) has not supported the case of the prosecution.

4. Having considered the submissions of 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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

5. The Bail Application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant –Riyujul 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document