Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2124/2020 on 15 January, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 15th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2124 of 2020
BETWEEN:
Naresh Chaudhary …….Applicant
(By Shri Lalit Sharma, learned Advocate)
AND :
State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent
(By Mr. S. S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate
General with Mr. P. S. Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for
the State)
The first bail application coming on for hearing
this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice Alok Kumar Verma
delivered the following Order:
ORDER
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.524
of 2020, registered with Police Station Haldwani,
District Nainital for the offence punishable under
Sections 354, 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.
2
2. An FIR was lodged by the victim against the
present applicant along with a co-accused alleging
therein that these persons used to call her in their
room and used to molesting her. The FIR was
registered on 12.10.2020. The statement of victim
was recorded on 14.10.2020 under Section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. S. S. Adhikari, learned Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. P. S. Uniyal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that the applicant has been falsely implicated; no
offence was committed by him according to the
statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure; the applicant has no criminal
history; he is a permanent resident of District
Naintial, he is in custody since 13.10.2020; charge
sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed
the bail application, however, he fairly conceded that
the applicant has no criminal history.
6. 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 main purpose is
manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.
3
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. 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.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
JKJ/Neha
Comments