Salman vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.453 of 2021, registered at police station Gangnahar, District Haridwar. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366A, 376(2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1)(j) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

An FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix’s father that the applicant kidnapped his minor daughter on 02.07.2021. Prosecutrix was recovered during the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate contended that the applicant, aged about 21 years, is an innocent person. Prosecutrix (PW1) was examined by the prosecution on 03.08.2022. Mentioning her age as 18 years, she stated in her examination-in-chief that she and applicant love each other. She went to Lucknow with the applicant on 02.07.2021, where physical relations were established several times between them. Principal (PW4) has stated that as per the record of the School, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 28.08.2003. She was admitted to the School on 01.04.2013 by her father. He (father) had produced the birth certificate of the prosecutrix, issued by the Nagar Palika on 07.04.2015. Prosecutrix‘s father (PW2) deposed on 24.11.2022 that he was married 22-23 years ago and the prosecutrix was born after one year of his marriage. According to the evidence produced by the Principal, the date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix was issued by Nagar Palika on 07.04.2015. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate further contended that the assessment of age of the prosecutrix at the stage of hearing of the bail application is of a tentative nature. In the present matter, there are material inconsistencies in the age related evidence, produced by the prosecution. Therefore, according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecutrix is found to be major as on the date of the alleged incident. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate has submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He has no criminal history, and, he is in judicial custody since 27.09.2021.

On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State, has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the date of birth certificate was issued by the Nagar Palika on 07.04.2015 and the applicant has no criminal history.

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-Salman 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.