Avdhesh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Avdhesh is in judicial custody in FIR No.99 of 2021, under Sections 354, 363, 366A, 506, 376AB IPC and Sections 9/10 and 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant, who happens to be the maternal uncle of the victim, a young girl of 10 years of age, enticed the victim and took her towards forest. When the informant and his wife came to know about it, they followed him and got the victim released from the clutches of the applicant. In that process, the FIR records that, there was a scuffle in which the applicant also sustained injuries.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the informant, who happens to be the father of the victim, assaulted the applicant and inflicted serious injuries on the applicant, and, thereafter, false case has been lodged.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim is 10 years of age; she has supported the prosecution case at trial.

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.

It is a case of sexual assault by a maternal uncle on a young girl of 10 years of age. The victim, in her statement given during investigation under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has supported the prosecution case. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that when the informant and his wife came to know about the activity of the applicant that he had been taking the victim towards forest, they followed him and got the victim released from him and in that process, there was a scuffle, in which the applicant sustained injuries. The victim has also stated the story to the doctor.

Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.