Amir vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Amir is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.1057 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l))/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Manglour, District- Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

According to the FIR, a girl of 17 years of age left her house on 12.09.2022 for tuitions, but she did not return. Her father lodged an FIR suspecting the applicant as the person, who has enticed her. The FIR records that, in fact, the applicant would molest the victim on her way to school.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that it is not a case of rape; the victim was just short of 18 years of age; she was in relationship with the applicant; they both walked out from their families willingly; the victim has already been examined in the court; she has stated that whatever relations she established with the applicant were established freely and voluntarily, without any pressure. It is argued that the applicant is 21 years of age; tomorrow, when the applicant comes out from jail, they may marry; no purpose would be served if the applicant is kept behind bars now. It is also argued that the applicant is in custody since 18.09.2022.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim is a minor; seven witnesses have already been examined; they have supported the prosecution case.

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.

It has also been argued on behalf of the applicant that, in fact, the victim has stated that her age was reduced in the school records. That may be a question for determination during trial. The FIR records that the victim was 17 years of age.

The witnesses have already been examined. The victim has though stated that she was in relationship with the applicant and they both went to Roorkee on the date of incident, and, thereafter, she did not return.

PW2 is the In-charge Principal of the school, where the victim had studied. She has stated about the date of birth of the victim.

The consent of a minor has less significance in law. According to the prosecution, the victim was a minor.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.