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 · 349 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 543 of 2022, under Section 376 (3), 323 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and section 5 (l) (n)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the instant case, FIR was lodged on the recommendation of the Child Welfare Committee. The victim reveals that her step-father would sexually exploit her.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim has assigned the role of assisting to her mother also, who has been granted bail by this Court; it is argued that the victim never accepted the applicant has her step-father; the applicant would restrict the activities of the victim, therefore, false FIR has been lodged against him.
Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during trial. She had some injuries also.
It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
In the instant case, the victim was helped by the Child Welfare Committee when she had injuries. She was medically examined. She had revealed that the applicant and her mother would beat her up. Some injuries were caused by them. During her medical examination also, the victim has stated that the applicant had established physical relations with her twice and third time, when he was attempting to do it, her mother reached. In the court also, the victim has supported the prosecution case.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
The bail application is rejected.