High CourtsSingle Bench

Brijesh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 6 May 2019 · Citation: (2019) 05 UK CK 0105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2379 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 412 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant Brijesh, who is in judicial custody, in connection with Case Crime No. 99 of 2018, under Section 376 I.P.C., and 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. B.S. Thind, Brief Holder for the State.

3.

In the instant case, an FIR was lodged on 23.07.2018 under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Act. According to it, on 19.07.2018, it was the birthday of the son of the first informant, in which, the applicant was also invited, who stayed with the first informant on that day. In the night, the applicant raped the daughter of the first informant. The prosecutrix revealed it, after a while. The prosecutrix is 15 years of age.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the story is totally unbelievable. In a room, all the family members were staying. Had any act been done by the applicant, prosecutrix would have raised her voice. It is not possible; FIR is delayed; the prosecutrix has already been examined in the trial and it is case fit for bail.

5.

Learned counsel for the State would urge that the prosecutrix is a minor and the applicant has committed a offence with her.

6.

The prosecutrix in her statement has not stated that she was raped. What she states is that the applicant inappropriately touched her body and private parts etc. When she tried cry her mouth was muffled. All the family members were sleeping in the same room where incident is alleged to have been happened. Detailed analysis at this stage, may not be appropriate, as the trial is going on.

7.

Having considered the submission, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

8.

The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, namely, Brijesh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

9.

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.