High CourtsSingle Bench

Shubham Sanjay Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 3 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 UK CK 0003

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Kumar Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(3) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(l), 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2132 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

10 paragraphs · 372 words

Alok Kumar Verma, J

1.

Present Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.51 of 2023, registered at police station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

As per the prosecution, the daughter, aged about 15 years, of the informant (father)was missing since 16.02.2023. First Information Report was registered on 17.02.2023 against unknown person. Applicant was arrested during the investigation. Charge-sheet was filed after completion of the investigation.

3.

Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.

Heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Bharadwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.

5.

Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, contended that the applicant, aged about 23 years, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Prosecutrix had refused to undergo her medical examination. The prosecutrix (PW1) and her father (PW2)/informant did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. As per the statements of the prosecutrix and her father, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 01.01.2004. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is a permanent resident of District Dhule City, Maharashtra, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he is in custody since 10.03.2023.

6.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he submits that the prosecutrix (PW1) and her father (PW2)/ informant have not supported the case of the prosecution.

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 – Shubham Sanjay Chaudhary 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.