High CourtsSingle Bench

Kalidas Sarkar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 20 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 UK CK 0123

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1286 Of 2023
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 · 383 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the Case Crime No.88 of 2023, registered at police station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S.T. Bharadwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3.

Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The alleged victim, aged about 17 years, has stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that she does not know Kalidas (present applicant). She had a quarrel with her mother. She had gone to her sister’s house in Rampur on 01.05.2023 without informing her family members and had returned of her own free will. Applicant has no criminal history. He is in judicial custody since 18.05.2023. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar.

4.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has submitted that the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution in her statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5.

There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activities.

6.

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.

7.

Having considered the submission 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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

8.

The Bail Application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant-Kalidas Sarkar 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.