Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Vishal Baien – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 369 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
BAIL - RELEASE ON BAIL - The court denied the bail application of the applicant, who was in judicial custody for serious charges under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations, the victim's testimony, and the lack of grounds for bail despite the duration of custody.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody for over one and a half years under serious charges including enticement and sexual offenses against a minor, as per FIR No. 343 of 2022. The victim went missing and later alleged that the applicant had enticed her and established physical relations under threat of blackmail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no compelling reason to grant bail, noting the serious nature of the charges and the victim's corroborative testimony during the trial.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the serious allegations and the duration of custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the severity of the charges and the victim's consistent testimony outweighed the applicant's arguments for bail, reinforcing the principle that bail is not a right in cases involving serious offenses.
Result: The bail application was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application, IA No. 1 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly.
2. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 343 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, on 22.08.2022, at about 7:15 AM, the victim left her home for school, but she did not return. A search was made. It was revealed that it is the applicant, who had enticed the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for more than one and a half years; 10 witnesses have been examined; had it been a case of enticement, the victim would have raised alarm at various places, where she allegedly went with the applicant.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case at trial.
7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.
8. The victim has already been examined at trial. She has stated that in the year 2022, one day when she was bathing, she noticed a mobile phone on the ventilator of her bathroom, which was held by some person. As soon as she noticed it, the person removed the mobile phone. Subsequently, the applicant entered into her room and told her that he had made a video of her while she was bathing and compelled her to submit her to physical relations, or else he would make the video viral. Under that threat, according to the victim, the applicant established physical relations with her and continued doing so, blackmailed her and took her away.
9. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
10. The bail application is rejected.
The court established that in cases involving serious allegations, the nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim, as well as the victim's statements, play a crucial role in determ....
The court established that the determination of bail should consider the context of the relationship and the actions of the victim, while ensuring that the decision does not prejudice the trial.
The court established that in cases involving minors, the victim's consent and relationship dynamics can influence bail decisions, provided that safeguards against potential harm are implemented.
Anticipatory bail can be granted in cases of serious allegations if the court finds that the circumstances, including the nature of the relationship and the potential for cooperation with the investi....
The victim's lack of support for the prosecution case and her statement regarding the medical examination were crucial in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The seriousness of sexual offence charges and the victim's statement are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence for enticement of a minor.
The court granted bail to the applicant under IPC Sections 376 and 506, emphasizing the need for conditions to protect the informant and ensure trial integrity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
