Single judge allowed the bail application of the accused charged with offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court observed lack of victim support and absence of forensic evidence, holding the case fit for bail.
Release on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
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. 554 of 2022
Rakesh Yadav ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Rakesh Yadav is in judicial custody in FIR No.174 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2
forensic, biological or electronic evidence against the applicant?
counter affidavit does not reveal it.
court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.09.2022
Sanjay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, charged with offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and POCSO Act, is fit for bail.
Whether lack of victim support and absence of forensic evidence warrants release on bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rakesh Yadav
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
