High CourtsSingle Bench

Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 18 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 UK CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 376, 506 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5, 6
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2435 Of 2023
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

11 paragraphs · 323 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application IA No.1 of 2023 stands disposed of, accordingly.

2.

Applicant Sanjay Kumar is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0067 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

According to the FIR, the victim, a young girl of 16 years of age, was found missing from her house from 6:30 PM of 23.02.2023.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the victim both were known to each other telephonically; the medical report does not support the prosecution case; the place where allegedly the victim was sexually assaulted, has not been identified by the victim.

6.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim was minor; she has supported the prosecution case at trial.

7.

It is a 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 proceeding.

8.

The victim has categorically stated that the applicant came close to her, established physical relations with her and one day, he took her away from her house, confined her in a room, and raped her on multiple occasions. The victim has also stated that the applicant never revealed her that he was already married with three children. As per the prosecution, the date of birth of the victim is 15.04.2007.

9.

Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

10.

The bail application is rejected.