High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 UK CK 0055

Sajid vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 28 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi Malimath, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 140 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 341 words

Ravi Malimath, J

1.

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2019, the complainant-Aftab lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Roorkee stating that the minor niece of the complainant had gone to school on 15.11.2019 at 08:00 A.M., but did not return. When they were searching for the victim, one person, namely, Hameed stated that he had seen the victim going with Sajid, Suhail and Abuzar, who all are the sons of one Yakub. The complainant further stated that, when they reached the house of the aforesaid accused persons, they found that the said accused persons were also not present.

2.

Based on these allegations, Case Crime No. 726 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of IPC and Sections 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused persons were arrested on 19.11.2019. After arrest, an application was made before the Trial Court seeking for bail. The same was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.01.2020. Hence, the present Bail Application.

3.

Shri Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant, contends that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim and hence the same cannot be believed.

4.

The same is disputed by Shri J.S. Virk, learned deputy advocate general appearing on behalf of the State, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit and the various documents mentioned therein.

5.

On hearing learned counsels, I do not find any merit in this bail application.

6.

The victim is a minor girl aged around 16 years. Her statement has been recorded. She has clearly implicated the accused persons in the commission of the offence. Therefore, it can be said that, based on the statement of the victim itself, a prima facie case exists against the present applicant. Even otherwise, a charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons for the alleged offences.

7.

For all these reasons, I do not find any ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.