Advocates:
['KARAN SINGH DUGTAL', '', 'NEERAJ PARIHAR', 'G A']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Third Bail Application No. 32 of 2021

Lalu Ram

…....... Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

..…...... Respondent

Presents:

Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. with Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Lalu Ram, is in judicial custody, in

Special Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2021, under Sections

354, 354-B of IPC and Section 7/8 of the Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the

Act”), Police Station Nachani, District Pithoragarh. He has

sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

This is third bail application. The first bail

application was rejected on 24.06.2021. Second bail

application was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4.

When the first bail application was rejected, the

applicant, was is in custody under Sections 376 read with

511, 354 and 354 B of IPC and Section 7 read with 8 and

9 (c) of the Act, 2012.

2

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that after investigation, charge sheet has not been

submitted under Section 376 read with 511 IPC and

Section 9 (c) of the Act. It is also argued that DNA report

does not establish the crime.

6.

Admittedly, the applicant was the Principal of

the school, where the victim was a student.

7.

According to the case, on 20.04.2021, in order

to get her transfer certificate, when the victim approached

the applicant, the applicant asked the victim to visit his

room. When the victim visited the room of the applicant,

the applicant pulled her inside the room and tried to do

Jabardasti with her and in this process, the applicant

tried to let the victim lay on his bed. The clothes worn by

the victim were torn. It is not the case of penetrative

sexual assault. Therefore, the DNA report has less

relevance. If the applicant is not charged for the offences

under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC and Section 9 (c)

of the Act, it is does not make out a new ground to

enlarge the applicant on bail, therefore, the bail

application deserves to be rejected.

8 .

The bail application is rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Nahid 04.03.2022