High CourtsSingle Bench

Shokeen And Shahrukh vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 UK CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366A, 376D, 504 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1643 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

12 paragraphs · 368 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the applicants, is taken on record.

2.

Present Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.01 of 2023 (Sessions Trial No.106 of 2023), registered at Revenue Police Station Patwari, Chhetra Masak, Tehsil Chakrata/ Police Station Kalsi, District Dehradun.

3.

Applicants are in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366A, 376D, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. M.A. Khan, learned AGA for the State.

5.

As per the First Information Report, lodged by the father of the victim, victim was missing since 30.05.2023.

6.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, contended that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They are innocent persons. Applicant no.1 is a permanent resident of District Dehradun and the applicant no.2 is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of their absconding. They have no criminal history.

7.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, further contended that as per the statement of the alleged victim (PW1), her date of birth is 11.02.2005. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. She has turned hostile, and, applicants are in custody since 30.05.2023.

8.

Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the applicants have no criminal history and the victim (PW1) did not support the case of the prosecution.

9.

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 applicants 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 applicants deserve bail at this stage.

10.

The Bail Application is allowed.

11.

Let the applicants – Shokeen and Shahrukh be released on bail on their executing personal bonds and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned