Rohit vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

Applicant Rohit, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.438 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) IPC and under Sections 5 (1)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali, Laksar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. has not supported the case of the prosecution. She would further submit that charge sheet has been filed; even statement of PW1 has been recorded and; that the applicant/accused is in judicial custody since 03.06.2022.

Per contra, Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Brief Holder for the State would vehemently oppose the bail application, however, he does not dispute the facts as stated by counsel for the applicant.

Perusal of Annexure No.2 i.e. the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix simply states that on 31.05.2022 her mother and brother had scolded her, therefore, she left for Saharanpur and took a room in a Dharamshala, but in this statement she has not stated the name of the applicant/accused.

Having considered the entirety of facts, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a case for bail.

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond with two sureties in the amount of ₹ 35,000/- and personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.