Facts
The Applicant filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning Case Crime No. 687 of 2024
Source reference: para. 3The prosecution alleged that on August 19, 2024, the Applicant—a married man with two children—absconded with the complainant’s 13-year-old daughter
Source reference: para. 4The Applicant argued for bail on grounds of false implication, delay in the FIR, lack of independent witnesses, and alleged contradictions in the victim's statements
Source reference: para. 5Conversely, the State opposed bail, citing the victim's age (15 years) and the commission of a penetrative sexual offence
Source reference: para. 6Issues
Whether the Applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault on a minor
Source reference: para. 3, 7Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.
Source reference: para. 3, 7Section 137 (2) (kidnapping) and 65 (1) (punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Sections 3 (ka)/4(2) and 5 (tha)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which strictly regulate offences involving penetrative sexual assault against minors
Source reference: para. 3, 7Reasoning
The Court weighed the Applicant’s claims of innocence and procedural delays against the gravity of the charges.
Source reference: no citationWhile the Applicant’s counsel highlighted the absence of a criminal history and alleged inconsistencies in the victim's statement, the Court prioritised the State's submission regarding the victim's status as a minor (15 years old) and the nature of the offence, specifically "penetrative sexual offence"
Source reference: para. 5, 6In applying these facts to the stringent standards of the BNS and POCSO Act, the Court determined that the circumstances and the severity of the alleged crimes outweighed the arguments for liberty at this stage
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that the Applicant failed to make out a sufficient case for the grant of bail
The bail application was rejected in connection with Case Crime No. 687 of 2024 for offences under the BNS and POCSO Act
Source reference: para. 7Original Court PDF
ROHIT SAUDAIvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in