2025:UHC:2719 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2328 of 2024 Surendra Singh …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rohit Kakkar and Mr. Ravindra Rawat, learned counsels. Counsel for the State : Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [corresponding to Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] has been filed by Shri Surendra Singh, son of Shri Balveer, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Hathi Karoda, Police Station Babari, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, presently detained in District Jail, Haridwar since 05.04.2024, in connection with FIR No. 249 of 2024 dated 01.04.2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar, for offences punishable under Section 363A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The factual matrix of the case, as emerging from the prosecution records, reveals that the complainant Mahendra, along with his wife Meera and their two minor children—a daughter aged 3 years 1 2025:UHC:2719 (Jyoti @ Kiran) and a son aged 2 months—had visited Nai Ghat, Haridwar on 29.03.2024 for performing the customary head-shaving ceremony of their infant son. On 30.03.2024 at about 9:30 AM, when the complainant's wife went to purchase milk, their daughter Jyoti accompanied her and subsequently went missing from the ghat area. The FIR was lodged on 01.04.2024 against unknown persons, after frantic search efforts proved futile. 3. During the course of the investigation, the police allegedly apprehended the applicant on 05.04.2024 and recovered the missing child from his custody. The prosecution alleges that the applicant abducted the minor girl with the intention of exploiting her for begging. A charge sheet has been filed, and the case is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Two witnesses have been examined so far. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. The record has also been perused. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that his client has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant, a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents, had visited Haridwar to take a holy dip in the Ganges and was arbitrarily apprehended while returning. The FIR does not name him and was filed after an unexplained delay of three days, despite the police outpost being merely 100 meters away. 6. It is further submitted that there are no independent witnesses either to the alleged abduction or to the recovery; that the statements of the 2 2025:UHC:2719 prosecution witnesses contain material contradictions; and that the alleged CCTV footage does not conclusively establish the applicant’s involvement. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in custody for over three months and that the trial is likely to take time. Willingness to comply with any condition imposed by this Court has been expressed, including the undertaking not to visit the Haridwar district during the trial. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application. It is submitted that substantial evidence has been collected, including: (i) recovery of the child from the custody of the applicant; (ii) her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. identifying the applicant; and (iii) statements of the complainant and police officials. The State highlights the serious nature of the offence and submits that the applicant may influence witnesses or abscond if released. 8. This Court has considered the submissions and examined the records, including the FIR, charge sheet, and statements. The abduction of a three-year- old child from the lawful custody of her parents, allegedly to be used for begging, is a grave allegation. The tender age of the child enhances the gravity of the offence. The material on record, including the recovery of the child and her identification of the applicant, prima facie indicates the applicant’s involvement. 9. The contentions raised by the defence regarding procedural irregularities and contradictions are aspects to be considered during the trial. At this 3 2025:UHC:2719 stage, they do not displace the prosecution’s prima facie case. 10. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while considering bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses or absconding are essential considerations. 11. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Court reiterated that mere prolonged incarceration is not a ground for bail where the offence is grave and the evidence on record is prima facie credible. 12. In Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338, it was held that bail can be denied where it would erode public confidence in the administration of justice, especially in heinous or socially sensitive cases. 13. Considering the gravity of the offence, the evidence collected, the stage of trial, and the vulnerability of the minor victim, this Court finds no justifiable reason to enlarge the applicant on bail at this juncture. 14. The applicant may, however, renew the prayer after material prosecution witnesses are examined. 15. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 26.03.2025 SB 4 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b0 9c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9B ED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.09 18:15:22 +05'30'