Accused alleged under Sections 328, 341/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 and 16/11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, bail granted: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.14921 04th AUGUST 2021 …Applicant Between: and State of Uttarakhand. …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. B.M. Pingal. Counsel for the Respondent :Mr. T. C. Aggarwal learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. P. S. Uniyal 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.238 of 2020 registered with Police Station Ramnagar District Nainital for the offence under Sections 328 341 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 7 8 and 16 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. On 26.05.2020 an information was given by the informant to the Police Station Ramnagar District Nainital alleging that her son aged about 16 years had gone to the locality in the evening on 20.05.2020 for some work 2 but he did not return home. He was searched. The next day after being told by a lady of the locality she found her son unconscious on the roof of the present applicant. Her son told her that the co accused had called him and had given him some intoxicant. He fainted as soon as he smelled that object. Her son was abducted and sexually assaulted by the co accused. Heard Mr. B.M. Pingal the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T.C. Aggarwal the learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. P.S. Uniyal the learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. B.M. Pingal the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report has been lodged with extreme delay and no sufficient explanation has been given for this delay no medical report of the victim is filed by the State the statement of the alleged victim has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and according to him he did not know what happened to him the applicant is in custody since 19.06.2020 he is a permanent resident of District Nainital the co accused has been granted bail by this High Court the charge sheet has already been filed therefore there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Mr. T. C. Aggarwal learned Deputy Advocate General the State opposed the bail application. However he fairly conceded that the co accused has been granted bail by this Court. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal 3 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. 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 merit 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 Aamir 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 with the following conditions : i) The applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him the prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail. 11. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court for onward compliance forthwith. ALOK KUMAR VERMA J. Dt: 04th August 2021 Pant 

Summary: When there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, then the accused should be released on bail. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter of Aamir Vs. State of Uttarakhand (FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO.1490 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail, alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 328, 341/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 and 16/11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In the present case, the informant informed the police that her son, aged about 16 years, had gone to the locality in the evening for some work, but he did not return home. On searching the next morning her son was found unconscious on the roof of the present applicant. The son informed that he was given some intoxication by the co-accused, that he smelled and fainted and in such a State, he was abducted and sexually assaulted by the co-accused. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was a delay in filing of FIR and no reason was specified for that delay. The counsel further stated that the statement of the alleged victim has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and according to him, he did not know what happened to him. The counsel also submitted that the release of the accused cannot tamper with any evidence, as the chargesheet had already been filed. The Deputy Advocate General however opposed the Bail application. The court observed that- “there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.” Thereby the bail application was allowed. Click Here For The Judgement