Saleem Khan vs State of Uttarakhand

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

The applicant is in jail having been implicated in Case Crime No.100 of 2017, which has been registered under Sections 376 (2) d, 340, 354 of IPC and

under Sections 5 (Cha) (Da) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, at Police Station â€" Kankhal, District- Haridwar.

The allegation against the applicant is not only of being involved in immoral trafficking but also of rape and other heinous offences. All the same, the

applicant would argue that neither he was named in the FIR nor does his name figure in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and

164 of CrPC. There is though mention of one “Kundan†in the statement of the victim under Section 164 of CrPC. According to the prosecution,

it is the applicant who is “Kundanâ€. On other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that the prosecution has wrongly suspected that

the alleged person “Kundanâ€​ is the present applicant. According to the applicant, Test Identification Parade has also not been done.

Â

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused, namely, Parveen Khan has already been granted bail by this Court in BA 1st No. 1812

of 2017 vide order dated 30.11.2017 and the present applicant is also entitled for bail at least on the ground of parity.

Considering the overall evidence, which is presently available before this Court, prima facie, the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail.

The bail application is allowed accordingly.

Let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid crime on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the equal amount to the

satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. It shall not be taken into

consideration at all in any other proceedings.