Second bail application by a man in judicial custody for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Sections 5(1)/6 POCSO Act arising from Haridwar. The court found no new ground to enlarge him on bail and rejected the application.
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
Second Bail Application No.189 of 2024
Ankit Kumar ….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-
Mr. Pratham Chandra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Special Sessions No.44 of 2023, under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali-Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
Ravi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail in a second application where the first bail application was already rejected on merits and no new ground exists.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ankit Kumar
State of Uttarakhand
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
