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
9 paragraphs · 276 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Applicant Vishal Yadav is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.67 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, the victim, a young girl aged 13 years, was found missing from her house. The FIR was lodged by her mother raising suspicion on the applicant as the person, who might have enticed her. Subsequently, the victim revealed that she had gone with the applicant.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a much young boy; the victim and the applicant were in relationship; they left the house but due to lockdown, they could not return; no offence, as such, is made out.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant committed rape on a young girl of 13 years of age; the victim has supported it in her examination at trial.
It is a case of sexual relationship with a young girl aged 13 years. The victim, in her statement given in the court, has supported the prosecution case. In fact, she was medically examined on 21.04.2021, she revealed as to how she joined the company of the applicant and established physical relations.
Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
The bail application is rejected.
