BA1/254/2020 of ADESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALFirst Bail Application No. 254 of 2020

Adesh Kumar

….Applicant

State of Uttarakhand

……Respondent

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 Case Crime No.449 of 2019, registered with Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.

2. An FIR was lodged by the informant, mother of the victim, against the applicant at 21.15 hrs. on 30.12.2019, alleging therein that on 30.12.2019 at about 05.30 p.m., her minor daughter, aged about six years, was playing in the courtyard of Shobha Ram’s house. The applicant took her inside Shobha Ram’s house. He started removing her clothes and turning his hand on her body. Due to which she got scared and came home crying. The informant went to the applicant’s house, on seeing which the applicant ran away.

3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. S.S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. assisted by Mr. P.S. Uniyal the learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person; he is student of I.T.I.; the mother of the applicant made complaints to the District Supply Officer, Haridwar and State Food Commissioner, Dehradun and because of

that the applicant has been falsely implicated; the applicant has no criminal history; he is resident of District Haridwar; he is in custody since 31.12.2019; the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

5. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application orally.

6. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is 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. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

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 personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned

JKJ/Neha

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 22.06.2020