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
15 paragraphs · 246 wordsSudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. R.K. Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No.586 of 2018, which has been registered under Sections 363, 346, 366-A and 368 of
IPC and under Sections 17/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station â€" Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar, District-
Haridwar.
As per the prosecution, the age of the prosecutrix is between 17 - 18 years. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix has not
supported the allegation of rape made against the applicant. On the contrary, she has given a statement in favour of the applicant under Section 161 of
CrPC. Moreover, the medical evidence does not suggest any rape.
Considering the overall evidence, which is presently available before this Court and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 28.06.2018, prima facie,
the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed accordingly.
Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the equal amount to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.
Â
It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. It shall not be taken into
consideration at all in any other proceedings.