AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 237 wordsSudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the accused applicant, and Mr. J.S. Virk, AGA for the State.
The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No. 132 of 2018 for the offences under Section 363, 366-A and 376 IPC and one under
Section 3A/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered in the Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the age of the
applicant is 21 years and the prosecutrix is 17 years old. Learned Counsel also contended that the statement of the prosecutrix made under Section
164 CrPC does not corroborate the allegations made in the FIR. Applicant is in jail since 02.4.2018.
Considering the overall materials presently available before this Court, prima facie the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed accordingly.
Â
Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge/Court concerned.
It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be taken
into consideration at all in any other proceedings.