CRLA/172/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 2066 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  IA No.1 of 2022 (Bail Application)
                                  in
                                  CRLA No. 172 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The appellant is convicted by the judgment and order dated 06.05.2022, passed by learned Fast Track Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee in Special Session Trial No. 57 of 2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(l), 376(3) of IPC and Section 5(n)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and was sentenced for maximum punishment of 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

4. The appellant pressed his bail application today.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on bail application.

6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case for the reason that there was some loan against him, with the father of the victim and learned counsel for the appellant also assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that there are many irregularities found in the investigation of the case, in as much as Investigating

Officer has not visited the place where the girl was taken and allegedly raped by the appellant.

7. Per contra, learned D.A.G. for the State has submitted that the girl was minor and he stressed upon the fact that the appellant was a married person having two children, and, therefore, it can be said that it is a case where we can say that exploitation of the victim has been made.

8. We have also gone through the lower court record of the case and we found that the victim has all throughout supported the prosecution version and there is no infirmity found in the case of the prosecution which may entitle the appellant for bail at this stage.

9. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application (IA No. 1 of 2022) is hereby rejected.

10. The observations made herein are only in respect of deciding the bail application, it shall not have any bearing on the final hearing of the appeal.

11. List on 22.11.2023.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.08.2023 PN