BA1/1708/2018 of AABID Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Parties
- BA1/1708/2018 of AABID (PETITIONER)
- STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)
Cites (3)
- AIR 1999 SC 1216 (1999) DISTINGUISHED
- RAJESH BAJAJ versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. (1999)
- RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ AND ANR. versus KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL AND ANR. (1995)
Statutes cited (46)
- code of criminal procedure, 154 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 154 (1973)
- indian penal code, 120 (1860)
- code of criminal procedure, 156 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 154 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 195 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 195 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 340 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 190 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 154 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 190 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 190 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 482 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 482 (1973)
- code of criminal procedure, 397 (1973)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
BA1 1708/2018Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate,
for the accused applicant. Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA, for the State.
Supplementary affidavit is taken on the record. Application (IA 10611/2018) made therefor stands disposed of.
Having been implicated in FIR No. 135/2018 for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, the applicant is in jail.
Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecutrix and her father have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile. He further contends that the co-accused Ved Prakash has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court and the present applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
Learned State Counsel contends that the present applicant is the main accused and his role is different from the co-accused and he has committed very heinous crime and the victim is 15 years old minor girl.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused
applicant. Bail application is rejected.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) Vacation Judge14.1.2019