Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sri Patti Ram 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 F.I.R. No.183 of 2020, registered with Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

On 18.07.2020, the informant lodged an F.I.R. with this effect that the present applicant along with the co-accused kidnapped his daughter, aged about 13 years.

During the investigation, on 18.09.2020, the victim was recovered from the custody of the co-accused. The victim was medically examined. The statement of the victim were recorded, under Sections 161 & 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pande, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the alleged victim was not recovered from the custody of the applicant; the victim did not support the prosecution case in her cross examination and she denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the present applicant; the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar; he has no criminal history and he is in judicial custody since 02.09.2020.

The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her cross examination and the applicant has no criminal history.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of an 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 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 Sanjeev Kumar 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.