The only object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is to secure the attendance of the accused: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1420 24nd JULY 2021 …Applicant Between: Ajay and State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mani Kumar. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Chauhan learned Brief Holder for the State Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma J. 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.266 of 2019 registered with Police Station Gadarpur District Udham Singh Nagar for the offence under Sections 366 A 376 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. On 08.011.2019 the informant lodged an FIR against the present applicant alleging therein that on 05.11.2019 at around 9:15 a.m. the present applicant enticed his daughter aged about 13 years and took her with him. She was searched. During the investigation on 11.11.2019 the victim was recovered from the custody of the present applicant. 2 Heard Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing. Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during the trial the alleged victim did not support the prosecution case. On 18.12.2020 the victim stated in her examination in chief that her age is 20 years and she herself went with the applicant and at that time she was major. According to the evidence of her mother and father the date of birth of the victim was mentioned in the school record without any basis whereas according to the Aadhar Card of the victim her date of birth is 15.01.2001. The applicant has filed a copy of the said Aadhar Card. Mr. Mani Kumar the learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the victim has stated before the learned trial court that the applicant never enticed her. She was in love with him and she got married to the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. He is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and he is in custody since 11.11.2019. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan the learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the bail application. However he fairly conceded that the victim did not support the prosecution case and the applicant has no criminal history. Bail is the rule and the 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 3 main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 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. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Ajay 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. Dated: 24th July 2021 Pant ALOK KUMAR VERMA J. 

Summary: 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, but to secure the attendance of the accused. A single Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter Ajay Vs. State of Uttarakhand (FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 147 of 2020), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has filed a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection for the offence under Sections 366-A, 376 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the present case, the informant filed an FIR against the present applicant alleging that the applicant enticed his daughter, aged about 13 years, and took her with him. Upon search and investigation, the victim was recovered from the custody of the applicant. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim had stated before the learned trial court that she was not enticed by the applicant and she herself went with the applicant, as because she was in love with him and got married to the applicant. The counsel also submitted that the date of birth of the victim was mentioned in the school record without any basis, whereas according to the Aadhar Card of the victim, her date of birth is 15.01.2001. Hence the victim was 20 years and major when she went with the applicant. The counsel for the appearing for the state opposed the bail application but contended that the victim did not support the prosecution case and also the applicant had no criminal history. The court observed that – “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 to secure the attendance of the accused.” Thereby the court held that there was no reason to keep the applicant in custody and hence allowed the bail application.