Satendra Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravi Malimath, J

The case of the prosecution is that on 26.05.2020, an FIR was lodged with the allegation that the daughter of the complainant, aged about 17½

years, was enticed and taken away by the applicant. His daughter had also taken rupees 1,50,000/- with her from his house. Based on the said

allegations, a case was registered against the applicant, as crime no. 136 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC, and

under section 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, before the Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar. Thereafter, the applicant was arrested. He filed bail

application no. 42 of 2020 before the trial court seeking his release. The bail application was dismissed by the order dated 11.06.2020. Hence, the

present bail application.

Shri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, contends that there is no material to indicate that the victim was a minor. In fact, there is

substantial material to show that she is a major. The statement of the victim would also indicate that she was voluntarily residing with the applicant and

had consented for the sexual activity.

The same is disputed by Shri J.S. Virk, learned deputy advocate general appearing on behalf of the State.

The contention of the applicant that the victim is a major does not have any force because the prosecution has material to indicate that she was not

a major, but a minor. It is needless to state that the consent of a minor is unacceptable. The contention of the applicant that no case is made out

against the applicant cannot be accepted, at this stage. These arguments are to be considered by the trial court. Prima facie, it would appear that the

prosecution has produced substantial material against the applicant. A heinous crime has been committed against the victim and money was also taken

from the house of the complainant.

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