Allowed

Vivek Alias Babu v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2024BA1/227/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 120B, 323, 377, 511 IPC and POCSO Act, the court held the petitioner fit for bail despite the grave nature of the offence involving a minor and the victim not naming him. The absence of test identification and naming by the victim weighed in favor of bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount.

Vivek Alias Babu Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No.227 of 2023

¶3

Vivek @ Babu ….....Applicant

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. K.H. Gupta, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Vivek @ Babu is in judicial custody in FIR No.817 of 2022, under Sections 120B, 323, 377 & 511 IPC and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 7/8, 9g/10, 13/14 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

According to the FIR, on 23.08.2022, coaccused along with one more person, took the victim, a young boy of 16 years of age, at a secluded place and tried to do carnal intercourse against the order of nature.

¶11

The FIR also records that they also recorded a video, which was made viral. The victim tried to commit suicide.

¶12

¶13

Thereafter, he was questioned and he revealed the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the bail application of the main accused, Nitin Kumar, has already been rejected. Co-accused Sachin has already been granted bail, who was not named by the victim in his evidence. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He was not named by the victim either in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) or under Section 164 of the Code. The Investigating Officer has revealed that the applicant’s name was involved in the case based on the statement of the co-accused, and no test identification parade was done. He would also submit that the video of the incident was run in the court and the court has recorded that the co-accused Nitin and the victim are seen in that video.

¶15

Learned State Counsel admits that the victim did not name the applicant in his examination during investigation. She also admits that it has not been a case of test identification and the applicant has been named by the co-accused.

¶16

¶17

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶20

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 01.05.2024

¶21

Ravi

Vivek Alias Babu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Alias Babu 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

Rajkumar Upadhyay Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Santoshi Vs Dr. Darmiyan Singh Bhandari

Nitin Srivastava Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gopal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through District Magistrate

Arun Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand