Shagun vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Shagun is in judicial custody in FIR No. 494 of 2023, under Sections 363, 370, 120B IPC, Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. She has sought her release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the son of the informant was found missing from the colony on 09.09.2023. Subsequently, he was recovered from the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a no evidence case; the applicant did not take the child from the custody of his parents; the person who allegedly took the child from the custody of his guardians is in no manner connected with the applicant;

it is the applicant at whose instance, Police was informant at telephone no. 100 and thereafter, the child was taken by the Police. It is argued that in such circumstances, the recovery loses its significance. It is also argued that mere recovery does not make out a case under Section 370 IPC.

Learned State counsel would submit that the child of the informant was missing. On CCTV footage, the co-accused was spotted taking the child. When questioned, the co-accused took the police at the house of the applicant from where the child was recovered. She would also argue that, in fact, the police was informed by the husband of the applicant that the applicant has brought the child in her house and is not revealing the identity of the child. In fact, what was noted by the operator is as follows:-

“Caller ki wife ek bacchhe ko apne sath le aai h bachha kis ka h bta nhi rhi h caller ko police help chahiye.”

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

It is a case of taking the small child from guardianship. The child was recovered from the applicant. The police was not informed at the instance of the applicant. In fact, her husband had informed the police, because as per the information given to the police, the applicant was not revealing the details of the child, which she was holding. Allegedly, the co-accused was spotted taking child and it the co-accused, who took the police to the applicant’s house.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.