High CourtsSingle Bench

Karanveer vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 UK CK 0103

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376AB · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(j)(ii), 5(m), 6 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1150 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

9 paragraphs · 350 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.124 of 2021, registered at police station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 363, 366, 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(j)(ii), Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3.

Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate has submitted that the victim (PW1) and the informant (PW2), father of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and applicant is in custody since 23.05.2022.

4.

Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the victim (PW1) and father of the victim (PW2) did not support the case of the prosecution, and, according to the victim, she was major at the time of the incident, present applicant is her husband and they have one child out of their wedlock.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

The Bail Application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicant-Karanveer 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.