BA1/1924/2021 of DARSHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2021-10-21
Case number: 1924 of 2021

Parties

BA1/1924/2021 of DARSHAN SINGH (PETITIONER)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

ARNESH KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (2014)

Statutes cited (3)

indian penal code, 380 (1860)
constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
constitution of india (1950)

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

Show all Body

|**3SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders or** **proceedings or** **directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||BA1 No. 1924 of 2021 **Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.** Mr. R.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. Counter affidavit (IA No. 2/2021) filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. Misc. application made, therefor, stands disposed of. This is first bail application moved by the applicant who is in jail in connection with FIR No. 0046 of 2021, offences punishable under Sections 376/506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, registered at PS Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 29.01.2021. He further submits that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence and all the allegations are false, vague and unusual in nature. He also submits that applicant is senior citizen aged about 70 years and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail suretyasper the satisfaction of|

|the Court.|
|---|
|Learned State Counsel|
|vehemently opposed the bail|
|application by contending that there|
|are specific allegations against the|
|applicant in the FIR as well as in the|
|statements of the victim recorded|
|under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.|
|Furthermore, the offence committed by|
|the applicant is heinous in nature and|
|the applicant is minor at the time of|
|the alleged of incident.|
|I have considered the submissions|
|of learned counsel for the parties and|
|considering the nature of offence, I am|
|not inclined to grant bail to the|
|applicant at this stage. The bail|
|application of the applicant is hereby|
|rejected.|
|**(N.S. Dhanik, J.)** 25.08.2021|
|AK|