Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 550 (UTT)

Rahees v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-08-14

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 616 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) IPC and Section 3(a)/4, 5 (l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station Manglour, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the co-accused enticed the victim, a young girl on 08.06.2023 and took her alongwith him. She was not traceable when the FIR was lodged. Subsequently, the victim was recovered from the house of the applicant. She revealed that initially, the co-accused took her and established physical relations with her and thereafter, the co-accused handed over the victim to the applicant, who also established physical relations with her on multiple occasions. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the co-accused took the victim in the house of the applicant where she stayed for about two months, but she did not raise any alarm. It is also argued that the victim never told the applicant so as to inform her family members. She also never tried to run away from the house of the applicant. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim is 15 years of age. She has supported the prosecution case during trial. 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. On being asked, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is married and he is 26 years of age. Why should the applicant keep a young girl at his house, who is minor? The victim has stated that the co-accused has established physical relations with her and thereafter, handed her over to the applicant, who also established physical relations with her on multiple occasions in his own house. The victim is a minor. The applicant is married person of 26 years of age. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected.