Gulshan @ Babu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with Case

Crime No.229 of 2020, registered with Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offence under Sections 363, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On 22.05.2020, at about 18.41 hrs an FIR was lodged by the victim alleging that at about 11:30 am on 20.05.2020, the present applicant along with

the co-accused Dhan Singh Kashyap and Akash Bisht kidnapped her. When she was searched, these three persons fled away by leaving her at

Bhavaniganj, Ramnagar.

Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Lalit Miglani, the learned AGA for the State through video

conferencing.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned AGA for the state requested three weeks’ time to deposit the cost. In the interest of justice time is granted.

Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been implicated in

this matter; the FIR is delayed; there is no independent witness nor any CCTV footage has been filed; the victim was major and her date of birth is

01.04.2002; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital; he is in custody since 15.06.2020; charge

sheet has been submitted, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence; the co-accused Dhan Singh Kashyap and Akash Bisht have

been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this High court.

No counter affidavit has been filed by the State despite availing sufficient opportunity to file the same; however, Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned counsel

for the State opposed the bail application orally and submitted that at the time of the incident, the victim was minor, but, no document has been filed in

support of this submission.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article

21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly

to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep

the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view

that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the court concerned.