High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 UK CK 0139

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 504, 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(1), 6 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2947 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 376 words

Alok Kumar Verma,J

1.

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.88 of 2019, registered with Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 504, 506 of IPC and 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

The informant/victim lodged an F.I.R. against the present applicant along with one co-accused person. The said F.I.R. was registered on 01.04.2019 under Sections 376, 504, 506 of IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. During the trial, the prosecution examined the victim, PW-1.

3.

Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V.S. Rathore, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

4.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; the victim/informant (PW-1) did not support the prosecution story; the applicant is in custody since 05.10.2021; the applicant has no criminal history; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However, he fairly submitted that the informant/victim (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution case.

6.

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. 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.

7.

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.

8.

The bail application is allowed.

9.

Let the applicant Sanjay 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.