SAIMA ALIAS SHAMIMA PARVIN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
BA1/975/2025 · 2025-07-02
Rakesh Thapliyal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7431 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7431 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:5633 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s
order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/975/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna,
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant- Saima @ Shamima Parvin w/o Mohd. Yamim is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 12.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 0118 of 2025 registered at P.S. Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar wherein three persons namely, Mukhtyar Shah, Salman and Fayima have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 351(2), 352, 64(1), 89 of BNS 2023 read with Section 3/4, 16/17 of the POCSO Act.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR and charge sheet has already been filed and as per the prosecution main accused is Mukhtyar Shah. He further submits that since investigation has been completed, and charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a house wife, and, therefore, she is entitled to get privilege of Section 480 of BNSs 2023.
5. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State has not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already been filed and as per the prosecution accused Mukhtyar Shah is
2025:UHC:5633 the main accused and, since charge sheet has already been filed, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant.
6. After hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since charge sheet has already been filed and as per the prosecution main accused is Mukhtyar Shah and present applicant is a lady, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant Saima @ Shamima Parvin be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
02.07.2025 Parul
2025:UHC:5633