Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2083/2020 on 20 May, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 2083 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mrs. Chetna Latwal, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand.
The applicant, herein, is an accused for
commission of the offences under Sections 377,
506 IPC, as well as under Section 5 (Da)/6 of
of 2018, at Police Station Kotwali Laksar,
District Haridwar.
As per the set of allegations, which had
been levelled in the FIR, it was contended that
the applicant was involved in the commission of
the aforesaid offences, and during the process of
committing the offences on 11.11.2018, the
applicant was apprehended on the spot by one
Mr. Ved Pal. It was further contended by the
prosecution that the said offence, since having
been committed on a minor, who is said to be of
ten years of age, the applicant had also been
booked under Section 5 (Da)/6 Of the POCSO
Act.
On the contrary, the case pleaded by the
counsel for the applicant is that the aforesaid FIR
of Case Crime No. 105 of 2018, was registered at
the Police Station on 11.11.2018.
The argument is based upon the pleading
raised in para 6 of the Bail Application to the
effect that the registration of the aforesaid FIR on
11.11.2018, is nothing but a counter blast to the
judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2018,
whereby, in Crime Case No. 120 of 2018, for the
offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, which
was complained by the brother of the present
applicant, as against the accused persons therein,
who had been convicted for the commission of
the aforesaid offences and have been sentenced
for ten years imprisonment.
The counsel for the applicant submits that
the registration of the present FIR, is nothing but
as a consequence of the vengeance of the
aforesaid judgment of conviction, and its
registration on 11.11.2018, itself is a fact which
is apparent from the record.
The pleading raised in para 6 of the Bail
Application has not been controverted by the
Government Advocate, in his counter affidavit.
In that eventuality, this Court is inclined to
grant bail to the applicant/Lakhan, subject to
furnishing of his personal bond and two sureties
of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Magistrate concerned.
However, it is made clear that whatsoever
observations, which have been made by this
Court while granting bail to the applicant is
exclusively tentative in nature, only for the
purposes of considering the bail application. As
far as the trial is concerned that is to be
exclusively decided on its own merits,
irrespective of any findings recorded by this
Court.
The Bail Application is allowed
accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 20.05.2021
Shiv
