Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 175 (UTT)

Ajay Sarkar v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-03-04

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This First Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.91 of 2019, registered with Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(N) of the I.P.C. and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (in short as the Act, 2012). 2. An FIR was lodged on 17.07.2019 by the father of the victim with the allegations that the applicant/accused kidnapped her daughter. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 of the I.P.C. and Section 17 of the Act, 2012. During investigation, the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(N) of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the Act, 2012 were added. 3. Heard Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he has no criminal history; he is in custody since 24.07.2019. In trial, the prosecutions case has not been supported by the victim herself and father of the victim. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application, however, he fairly concedes that in trial, prosecutions case is not supported by the victim and father of victim. 6. The bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of the bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Honble Apex Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant 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.