Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/58/2019 on 31 January, 2019
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
BA1 No. 58 of 2019 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pramod Tewari, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counter affidavit filed in the Court today. Same is accepted on record.
The applicant is in jail in connection with F.I.R. No. 34 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh.
On 19.11.2018, a report was lodged in Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh that the applicant has enticed the daughter of first informant on 16.11.2018 for sexually exploiting her.
Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the victim is born on 01.04.2000, which is evident from the Maternity Card issued at the time of her birth, which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application, therefore, she was major at the time of incident. While referring to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is urged that applicant and victim were in relationship and no force was used and she willingly accompanied the applicant.
Learned Brief Holder would argue that date of birth of the victim is 08.03.2003.
With regard to the Maternity Card, there is no response from the State; although, categorically, in paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit, the applicant has stated about it; but, reply to it is totally silent, which is very vital for disposal of the bail application. In her statement given before the Investigating Officer, the victim has stated that she has been in relationship with the applicant and, on her own, she accompanied the applicant. She has also stated that her date of birth is 01.04.2000, which is recorded in the Maternity Card, but according to her in school records, her date of birth is 08.03.2000.
Without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, namely, Anil Singh Dariyal be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid offence on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani J.) Vacation Judge 31.01.2019 Arpan