High CourtsSingle Bench

Lokendra vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 20 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 UK CK 0127

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3(a), 4 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1642 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

13 paragraphs · 414 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present 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.310 of 2023, registered at police station Laksar, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Mr. Ram Nivas Singh Rana, Advocate, contended that under 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the statement of the alleged victim, aged about 17 years and 9 months, was recorded on 19.04.2023, in which, she stated that no physical relationship was established between her and applicant, and, the same statement was given by her before the Medical Officer.

3.

Mr. Ram Nivas Singh Rana, Advocate, has further submitted that the applicant, aged about 22 years, is in custody since 19.04.2023, and, he has no criminal history.

4.

On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A., has opposed the bail application orally.

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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

6.

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 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 – Lokendra, 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 with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when requires;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;

9.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him,

Investigating Officer will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.