Sanjana Sharma @ Mona Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR

No.238 of 2020, registered with Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 341 of I.P.C. and Section

7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On 26.05.2020, an information was given by the informant to the Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital alleging that her son, aged about 16

years, had gone to the locality in the evening on 20.05.2020 for some work, but he did not return home. He was searched. The next day, after being

told by a lady of the locality, she found her son unconscious on the roof of the present applicant. Her son told her that the present applicant had called

him and had given him some intoxicant. He fainted as soon as he smelled that object. Her son was abducted and sexually assaulted by the present

applicant.

Heard Mr. B.M. Pingal, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal, the

learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. B.M. Pingal, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report has been lodged with extreme delay and no

sufficient explanation has been given for this delay; no medical report of the victim is filed by the State; the statement of the alleged victim has been

recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and according to him, he did not know what happened to him; the applicant has

been acquitted in Sessions Trial No.16 of 2015 (FIR No.323 of 2014); the applicant, a woman aged about 27 years, is in custody since 26.05.2020; she

is a permanent resident of District Nainital; the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that the applicant has been

acquitted in connection with FIR No.323 of 2014.

Bail is the rule and the 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 trial is not punishment. The main purpose is

manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

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 merits 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 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) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and she shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

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

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon her, the prosecution will be free to move the court for

cancellation of bail.

The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court for onward compliance forthwith.