Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. rejected the bail application of Bharat Kashyap accused of Section 376 crimes against a 16-year-old victim, holding that the charge is not fit for bail and age scrutiny will continue at trial.
The bail application is rejected. The accused remains in judicial custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No. 32 of 2022
Bharat Kashyap ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General with Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, Brief Holder for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Bharat Kashyap is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 337 of 2019 under Section 363, 366A, 376(3), 376(2) (n) IPC and Section 5( l) (n) /6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2
school, her age was reduced by three years. Reference has been made to the statement of PW 5 recorded in para 8 on 27.11.2021.
3
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.09.2022
Avneet/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act against a minor victim is entitled to bail.
Whether the alleged discrepancy regarding the victim's age by her mother's statement alone warrants granting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bharat Kashyap
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
