Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.839 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 377, 511 IPC and Section 9/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the applicant forcibly took a young boy of 14 years of age in the field and he wanted to establish carnal relations with him against the order of nature, but, meanwhile, the brother of the victim could notice it. The victim is a deaf and dumb boy.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a no injury case; it is a case of mere attempt; the victim has not stated anything specific in his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the applicant; there is no identification.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during investigation; the brother of the victim has spotted the applicant, when he was lying over the victim in the process of committing sexual assault on the victim. She would also submit that the brother of the victim has also prepared a video, which is the part of investigation.

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 proceeding.

It is an attempted sexual assaulted on a minor boy, who is deaf and dumb. Fortunately, he could be saved because the witnesses had seen the applicant taking the victim towards the fields. The brother of the victim has prepared a short video also. Witnesses have stated about the incident.

Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

The bail application is rejected.