Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1680
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
MANISH SAINI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA1 No. 644 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Shruti Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Himanshu Sain
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Shruti Joshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Himanshu Sain
Bail may be granted when an applicant has been imprisoned for an extended time, and there are no compelling reasons for further custody as trial progresses.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The applicant, languishing in jail after being implicated in an FIR under sections 376, 504, 506 r/w ¾ of POCSO Act, seeks bail after the trial has commenced and in light of consensual relationship references made by the victim in her statement. (Paras 5, 6, 9)
(B) Implications of long incarceration on the right to bail - The court considers the duration the applicant has been in custody and finds the conditions warranting bail established. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant has been in jail since 28.02.2024 for alleged offenses under the POCSO Act, with arguments about consensual relations presented in court along with visitation records of the victim.
Findings of Court:
Given the long incarceration and the commencement of trial, the court found it appropriate to grant bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, and the necessity of custodial interrogation given the trial status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that prolonged confinement without further necessity for custodial interrogation is grounds for bail, reflecting on the applicant’s right to liberty during trial.
Result: Bail application is allowed.
| SL. N o . | D a t e | Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s | COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS |
| H 1 BA1 No. 644 of 2025 on’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. . Mrs. Shruti Joshi, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant through the legal aid counsel. 4. The present applicant ‘Manish Saini’ S/o Satpal Saini is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 30.12.2023 bearing FIR No. 0391 of 2024 P.S. Transit Camp, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated and the chargesheet for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 r/w ¾ of POCSO Act. 5. Learned counse for the applicant submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 28.02.2024 and the trial has already been commenced and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C . stated that whatever be the relation in between both of them are consensual and furthermore the medical of the victim was conducted after two months of the incident and not only this even the victim frequently visits the jail to meet the applicant however only due to the family pressure she does not admit the fact that the victim is in love with the applicant. 6. It is further argued that in fact this is an admitted fact that the applicant and the victim both of them were in love and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C . the victim gives refrence of the incident of October, 2023. It is also further submitted that the present applicant already suffered long incarceration since he is languishing in jail since 28.02.2024 and the trial has already been commenced and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 7. In support of the regular visit of the victim to the jail to meet the applicant the visitation record of the concerned jail is also annexed as Annexure-6. |
