Nanhe Mayuar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1311 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          First Bail Application No.629 of 2023

Nanhe Mayuar                                     .... Applicant

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                          ..... Respondent

Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

                                                 Dated: 10.05.2023

Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on

record. Delay Condonation Application being IA

No.1/2023 stands allowed. Counter affidavit is taken on

record.

2. Applicant Nanhe Mayuar, who is in judicial

custody in FIR No.77 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366,

376(3) IPC and Sections 5, 6 of POCSO Act, Police

Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, has sought his

release on bail.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on file.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that

she left her home on her own when her brother was

beating her and thereafter she went to Bareilly with the

applicant/accused and established physical relation

with her consent as she knows the applicant/accused

since last five to six months and therefrom she went to

Panipat from where she was recovered. Counsel for the

applicant would further submit that in the FIR itself it

has come that the prosecutrix was victim of same kind of

sexual assault previously also and he has placed the

copy of the judgment passed by the Special Judge,

POCSO/FTC, Nainital of that case, which reads that in

previous case one Mohit Arya was acquitted in the case

of sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. He would further

submit that the charge sheet was filed on 03.08.2022

and charges were framed in the month of November,

2022, but no evidence is recorded till date; the

applicant/accused is languishing in jail since long and

there is no possibility in near future about the

conclusion of the trial.

5. Per contra, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for

the State would vehemently oppose the bail application.

However, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is admitted and the fact that

no evidence is recorded inspite of charge sheet being

filed in the month of November, 2022.

6. In the circumspection of facts, without

expressing any opinion about merits of the case before

the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a

case for bail.

7. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

Let the applicant be released on furnishing bail bond

with two sureties in the amount of ₹ 35,000/- and

personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of

the learned Trial Court.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 10.05.2023 BS