Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/165/2017 of Meena Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand on 28 December 2017
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.165 of 2017 Meena Devi ……....Applicant vs. State of Uttarakhand ……..Opposite Party Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate assisted by Mrs. Shruti Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.165 of 2017
Meena Devi ……....Applicant
vs.
State of Uttarakhand ……..Opposite Party
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate assisted by Mrs. Shruti Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.(Oral)
The second bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in Case Crime No.14 of 2017, under Section 376(C), 370(4), 504 and 506 of IPC and 5(6)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and 4 and 5 of Immoral Trafficking Act, P.S. Shyampur, District Haridwar.
2. The first bail application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2017. In view of the fact that the documents were produced by the applicant that the applicant was suffering from blood cancer and was undergoing treatment at PGI, Chandigarh, so, the applicant was sent to the PGI from jail. Initially, the applicant was directed to surrender on or before 17.11.2017 and the first bail application was disposed of by considering the bail application as a short term bail.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the father of the girl had lodged a FIR at Shyampur Police Station with the allegation that her minor daughter aged about 14 years, the applicant (Meena Devi), whose resident was in same vicinity of the victim, had gone with her minor daughter at Haridwar, 4 to 5 times. Thereafter, the applicant’s customer had done something wrong with the girl and threatened her not to disclose before her parents about physical consequences.
4. The statement of the girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 23.2.2017. The age of the girl has been prescribed as 13 years at the time of incident, when she gave the statement against the present applicant.
5. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that prior to the incident on 19.2.2017, the girl came into the house of the accused-applicant and following her parents reached the house of the applicant, where the girl was not found. They made a call to the Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar. After coming the police, the girl was recovered from the house of the applicant and handed over to her parents on the next date i.e. 20.2.2017 at 9.40 p.m. It is nowhere mention here that why the girl had gone to the house of the applicant.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that she is her neighbor and from the documents produced by the applicant, it reveals that the girl was found in the night of 19/20.2.2017 at the house of the accused-applicant and saved herself from the action of her parents, the girl, time and again, reached to the house of the applicant.
7. It is an admitted case of the applicant that the minor girl twice found at the house of the deceased. But the applicant contended to explain why the girl / prosecutrix was coming to her house.
8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that applicant does not deserve for bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is hereby dismissed.
Ravi
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) 28.12.2017