Uttarakhand High Court
Salman vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 April, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1332 of 2024
Salman .............Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The applicant is in judicial custody in
FIR/Case Crime No.316 of 2023, dated 30.05.2023,
under Sections 363, 376-A, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 323, 506
IPC and Sections 5(l)/6, 16/17 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station
Jhabrera, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on
bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the victim, a young girl
was kidnapped by the applicant and the co-accused on
30.05.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant and the victim, both were in
relationship for the last three years; the co-accused has
2
already been granted bail. Learned counsel would submit
that when medically examined by the doctor, as per the
doctor, the victim was changing her statement quite
frequently.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the
victim, in her statement recorded in the court has not
stated that she was in relationship with the applicant.
She would submit that the victim was a minor. She would
submit that the Hotel Manger has also stated that the
applicant and the victim stayed in hotel.
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at
this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the
controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat
that any observation made at this stage shall have no
bearing at any subsequent stage of the case.
7. The co-accused, who was driving the
motorcycle, has already been granted bail. The victim has
been cross-examined and thereafter, statement is given
during investigation. According to her, she did not tell it
to the Investigating Officer that she was in relationship
with the applicant for the last three years. She has also
denied of having been given any statement to the
3
Investigating Officer that the applicant had told her to
take her Mussoorie and fulfil her desire.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view
that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to
be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
07.04.2025
Sanjay
[ad_1]
Source link