Pawan Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present 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.31 of 2023, registered at police station Mukhani, District Nainital under Section 363, Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, “the Act, 2012”).

An FIR was lodged by the informant on 01.02.2023 that one Dheeraj had taken the minor victim (girl) from her school. The FIR was registered against Dheeraj. The victim was recovered from the custody of the present applicant on 15.02.2023. The victim has stated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that she went with Pawan (present applicant) with her free will. They, both, wanted to marry each other. She further stated in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that there was no physical relationship between them.

Heard Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder for State.

Section 16 of the Act, 2012 defines abetment of an offence. Section 17 of the Act, 2012 provides that whoever abets any offence under the Act, 2012, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with punishment provided for that offence.

It is contended by Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, that there is no case of prosecution that the applicant has committed any offence under the Act, 2012, nor any ingredient has been found to constitute the offence of Section 366 IPC; applicant, aged about 22 years, is in custody since 16.02.2023 and he has no criminal history.

On the other hand, Mr. S.T. Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, has opposed the bail application.

Bail is the rule and 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 investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

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 merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant – Pawan Sharma, 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 with the following conditions :-

i) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when requires;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case;

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Investigating Officer will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.