Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 282 (UTT)

Deepak Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

2021-05-25

ALOK KUMAR VERMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 138 of 2019, registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. On 19.03.2019, an information was given by the informant to the Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar that the present applicant kidnapped her minor daughter in the intervening night of 16/17.03.2019. The present applicant was arrested on 20.03.2019 and the victim was recovered from his custody. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet is submitted. 3. Heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State through video conferencing. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person; he has been falsely implicated in this matter; the victim (PW-1) and her mother/informant (PW-2) did not support the prosecution case in the trial; the applicant is in custody since 20.03.2019; the applicant is a permanent resident of Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and he has no criminal history. 5. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail application. However, he admitted that the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) did not support the prosecution case in the trial. 6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the 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. 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 merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 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.