Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Jun 2023BA2/117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the second bail application of a youth accused of sexual assault on a 12-year-old girl and threatening her life. The court held that the investigating officer's site plan verified by the victim establishes the applicant ran a shop there at the material time, overriding evidence of its closure a month later.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant remains in judicial custody.

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No.117 of 2023

¶3

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal ...Applicant

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 01 of 2022, under Sections 9 (m) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 354 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Thana Kafolsyun, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 25.02.2023.

¶11

According to the FIR, on 18.10.2022, at 5:00 in the evening, the victim, a young girl of 12 years of age, visited the shop of the applicant for purchasing an eraser.

¶12

¶13

The applicant at that time made sexual advances and touched her private parts, due to which the victim started crying. The applicant gave toffees and ice-creams to the victim so that she may not reveal the matter to anyone, and thereafter, the applicant threatened the victim to life as well. Subsequently, the victim revealed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant does not run any shop at the place as alleged by the prosecution. He has referred to a certificate given Village Pradhan, which is Annexure 3 to the bail application. According to which, at the relevant time i.e. on 20.04.2023, the applicant had no shop at Jakhali Bazar. It is argued that the document given by the Village Pradhan is admissible in evidence and it makes out a case for bail because the applicant has no shop at the place. There is no question of committing offence.

¶15

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that, in fact, the Investigating Officer has prepared a site plan and shown the shop which was run by the applicant where the offence was committed. It is also argued that victim has also been examined as PW2 at the trial and she has verified the signature on the site plan.

¶16

This is second bail application. It is true that there is a certificate given by the Village Pradhan that at

¶17

¶18

present, which means on 20.04.2023, there was no shop of the applicant. But, the fact remains that the Investigating Officer has prepared site plan showing the shop run by the applicant. The victim has been examined at trial. She has verified her signature on the site plan. In fact, she was not asked that the applicant was not in any of the shops shown in the site plan or even she was not told that the applicant has no shop at the relevant place.

¶19

Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶20

The bail application is rejected.

¶21

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.06.2023

¶22

Jitendra

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand through Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar

Dev Kumar Jain Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Dehradun

Mohd Amjad Alias Bhure Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Veer Singh Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sahban Vs State of Uttarakhand