Ritik vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present 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.51 of 2023, registered at police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(1) read with Section 6 and Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

As per the prosecution, on 01.02.2023, applicant had seduced the daughter of the informant. At that time, her age was about 16 years. Charge-sheet has been filed. Prosecutrix (PW1) and informant (PW2), father of the prosecutrix have been examined.

Heard Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned AGA with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Prosecutrix (PW1) and the informant (PW2) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecutrix (PW1) has stated in her oral evidence that her date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2004 in her Birth Certificate, Primary School, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and Ration Card. (PW2) informant, has stated in his evidence that he had got his daughter’s initial admission in National Junior High School, in which he had registered her actual date of birth as 01.01.2004. He has stated in his cross-examination that his daughter had studied in Class 7th and 8th in Chandrapur School, where he had reduced her age by two years, so that she could get job benefits. He has further stated in his cross-examination that his daughter’s date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.2004 in her Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Ration Card and Birth Certificate.

Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate, has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. He is in custody since 11.02.2023, and, he is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application orally. However, she fairly conceded that the prosecutrix (PW1) and her father (PW2), informant, did not support the case of the prosecution.

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 – Ritik be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.