2025:UHC:3053 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 24 of 2024 Ashok Singh alias Sokhi alias Sukkhi …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel through video conferencing. Counsel for the State : Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ashok Singh @ Sokhi @ Sukkhi, who is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 206 of 2023, registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 2. The First Information Report was lodged on 02.09.2023 by the complainant, wherein it was stated that her elder grand-daughter, who is married to one Aman Singh, had fled away and had also taken the younger grand-daughter with her. The younger grand- daughter was stated to be approximately 14 years of age at the time of the incident. The FIR alleged that either the elder grand-daughter and her husband or 1 2025:UHC:3053 one Sukkhi (present applicant) was responsible for taking away the minor girl. 3. During the course of investigation, statements of the victim were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The State relies upon the subsequent statements of the victim, wherein she allegedly stated that she was threatened by the brother of the applicant and implicated the applicant in the incident. The age of the Victim as verified through school records, which indicate her date of birth as 10.02.2009. The charge sheet was subsequently filed against the applicant under the aforementioned sections. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and rivalry with the complainant's family. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR dated 02.09.2023 are vague and based merely on suspicion, as there is no specific role attributed to the present applicant. The FIR does not clearly allege that the applicant enticed or abducted the alleged minor victim, and the name of the applicant appears only as a possibility among others, which indicates that the FIR is speculative in nature. 5. It is further contended that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has categorically stated that she left her home voluntarily along with her elder sister and brother-in-law Aman Singh, as her grandmother was attempting to remarry her elder sister despite her already being legally 2 2025:UHC:3053 married. 6. The alleged victim has clearly stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated by her grandmother, and there was no role played by the applicant in her leaving the house. This statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly exonerates the applicant from any culpability. 7. It is also urged that the applicant has not been named as the person from whom the alleged victim was recovered. There is no recovery from the possession of the applicant, nor is there any direct evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The implication of the applicant appears to be an afterthought and not supported by credible material on record. 8. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.10.2023 and no further custodial interrogation is required. It is contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is a law-abiding citizen. The charge sheet has already been submitted and the trial is stated to be in progress. Hence, continued incarceration of the applicant is not necessary. 9. The State has opposed the present bail application. It is contended that the case at hand involves grave and non-bailable offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The State alleges that the applicant, Ashok Singh @ Sokhi @ Sukkhi, along with co-accused Aman Singh and the victim’s elder sister, conspired to take away the 3 2025:UHC:3053 minor girl from her lawful guardianship on 02.09.2023 with the intent to facilitate her marriage with the co- accused Aman Singh. 10. The minor was allegedly transported through various locations including Haridwar, Muzaffarnagar, and ultimately Delhi, and was recovered on 11.09.2023. It is alleged that during this period, the victim was subjected to sexual assault by the co- accused Aman Singh. The applicant is alleged to have been involved in aiding the travel and concealment of the minor during this period. 11. The State relies on the victim’s initial statement and the subsequent recovery to link the applicant to the offence. While the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. primarily accuses Aman Singh, the State contends that the applicant’s role in facilitating the movement and concealment of the minor cannot be ignored, and his involvement remains under investigation. 12. Heard learned Counsels for the Parties and perused the records. 13. The present case involves serious allegations under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. However, after a close examination of the records, it is apparent that the specific allegations of rape under Section 376(3) IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act are not directly levelled against the applicant. 14. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., does not attribute any sexual 4 2025:UHC:3053 assault or coercion to the applicant, Ashok Singh @ Sokhi @ Sukkhi, but mentions the co-accused Aman Singh as the principal perpetrator. This omission is significant and casts doubt on the applicant's involvement in the alleged offense of sexual assault. 15. The applicant's role, is limited to being a co- traveller or an associate of the victim and her elder sister, who allegedly fled with co-accused Aman Singh. There is no evidence on record that directly links the applicant to any coercion, abduction, or sexual assault. In fact, the applicant's involvement is only peripheral, and the charges framed against him under Sections 363 and 366 IPC do not suggest any active role in the abduction or inducement of the minor girl, as the prime allegations are against Aman Singh. 16. The applicant has been in custody since 26.09.2023, and the investigation regarding his role in the crime has been concluded. No further recovery or investigative action is pending from the applicant, and the charge sheet has been filed. In light of these facts, it is pertinent to consider whether the applicant's continued detention is warranted. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar SatishbhushanBariya vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) 7 SCC 293 held that “it is only when the accused has committed a serious and heinous offense that the liberty of the individual can be curtailed.” In the present case, the allegations against the applicant, while serious, do not rise to the level of a heinous offense that would justify his continued incarceration. 5 2025:UHC:3053 18. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,(2018) 3 SCC 22, has stated that, “…The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive." 19. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, as affirmed by the State. His continued detention without sufficient evidence to substantiate a more significant role in the commission of the crime is contrary to the principle of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 672 emphasized that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," particularly when the accused does not pose a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. ORDER Let the applicant, Ashok Singh @ Sokhi @ Sukkhi, be released on on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence, shall not attempt to influence any witness, and shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any of these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. The bail application is allowed. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 17.04.2025 SB 6