Mohit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Bail Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, registered at police station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar. The First Information Report was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate, has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He is in judicial custody since 20.09.2022. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar. He has no criminal history. Victim (PW1), aged about 18 years, has stated in her examination that she herself went with the applicant on her own will and stayed with him in a rented house for six days in Khatauli, but, there was no physical relationship between them.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application orally.

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.

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.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Mohit Kumar 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.