Surendra Singh v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

filed by Shri Surendra Singh, son of Shri Balveer, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Hat hi Karoda, Police St at ion Babari, Dist rict Sham li, Ut t ar Pradesh, present ly det ained in Dist rict Jail, Haridwar since 05.04.2024, in connect ion wit h FI R No. 249 of 2024 dat ed 01.04.2024, regist ered at Police St at ion Kot wali Nagar, Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sect ion 363A of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The fact ual m at rix of t he case, as em erging t he prosecut ion records, reveals t hat t he com plainant Mahendra, along wit h his wife Meera and t heir t wo m inor children—a daught er aged 3 years 1 ( Jyot i @ Kiran) and a son aged 2 m ont hs—had visit ed Nai Ghat , Haridwar on 29.03.2024 for perform ing t he cust om ary head- shaving cerem ony of t heir infant son. On 30.03.2024 at about 9: 30 AM, when t he com plainant 's wife went t o purchase m ilk, t heir daught er Jyot i accom panied her and subsequent ly went m issing from t he ghat area. The FI R was lodged on

01.04.2024 against unknown persons, aft er frant ic search effort s proved fut ile.

3. During t he course of t he invest igat ion, t he police allegedly apprehended t he applicant on

05.04.2024 and recovered t he m issing child from his cust ody. The prosecut ion alleges t hat t he applicant abduct ed t he m inor girl wit h t he int ent ion of exploit ing her for begging. A charge sheet has been filed, and t he case is current ly at t he st age of prosecut ion evidence. Two wit nesses have been exam ined so far.

4. Heard learned counsel for t he applicant and learned counsel for t he St at e. The record has also been perused.

5. Learned counsel for t he applicant cont ends t hat his client has been falsely im plicat ed. I t subm it t ed t hat t he applicant , a law- abiding cit izen wit h no crim inal ant ecedent s, had visit ed Haridwar t o t ake a holy dip in t he Ganges and was arbit rarily apprehended while ret urning. The FI R does not nam e him and was filed aft er an unexplained delay of t hree days, despit e t he police out post being m erely 100 m et ers away.

6. I t is furt her subm it t ed t hat t here are no independent wit nesses eit her t o t he alleged abduct ion t o t he recovery; t hat t he st at em ent s of t he 2 prosecut ion wit nesses cont ain m at erial cont radict ions; t hat t he alleged CCTV foot age does not conclusively est ablish t he applicant ’s involvem ent . I t is also subm it t ed t hat t he applicant has been in cust ody for over t hree m ont hs and t hat t he t rial is likely t o t ake t im e. Willingness t o com ply wit h any condit ion im posed t his Court has been expressed, including t he undert aking not t o visit t he Haridwar dist rict during t he t rial.

7. Per cont ra, learned St at e Counsel has opposed t he bail applicat ion. I t is subm it t ed t hat subst ant ial evidence has been collect ed, including: ( i) recovery of t he child from t he cust ody of t he applicant ; ( ii) her st at em ent recorded under Sect ion 164 Cr.P.C. ident ifying t he applicant ; and ( iii) st at em ent s of t he com plainant and police officials. The St at e highlight s t he serious nat ure of t he offence and subm it s t hat t he applicant m ay influence wit nesses or abscond released.

8. This Court has considered t he subm issions and exam ined t he records, including t he FI R, charge sheet , and st at em ent s. The abduct ion of a t hree-year- old child t he lawful cust ody of her parent s, allegedly t o be used for begging, is a grave allegat ion. The t ender age of t he child enhances t he gravit y of t he offence. The m at erial on record, including t he recovery of t he child and her ident ificat ion of t he applicant , prim a facie indicat es t he applicant ’s involvem ent .

9. The cont ent ions raised by t he defence regarding procedural irregularit ies and cont radict ions are aspect s t o be considered during t he t rial. At t his 3 st age, t hey do not displace t he prosecut ion’s prim a facie case.

10. I n St a t e o f U.P. v . A m a r m a n i Tr i p a t h i , ( 2 0 0 5 ) 8 SCC 2 1 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat while considering bail, t he nat ure and gravit y of t he accusat ion, t he severit y of t he punishm ent , and t he likelihood of t he accused t am pering wit h wit nesses or absconding are essent ial considerat ions.

11. I n K a l y a n Ch a n d r a Sa r k a r v . Ra j e sh Ra n j a n , ( 2 0 0 4 ) 7 SCC 5 2 8 , t he Court reit erat ed t hat m ere prolonged incarcerat ion is not a ground for bail where t he offence is grave and t he evidence on record is prim a facie credible.

12. I n Pu r a n v . Ra m b i l a s, ( 2 0 0 1 ) 6 SCC 3 3 8 , it was held t hat bail can be denied where it would erode public confidence in t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice, especially in heinous or socially sensit ive cases.

13. Considering t he gravit y of t he offence, t he evidence collect ed, t he st age of t rial, and t he vulnerabilit y of t he m inor vict im , t his Court finds no j ust ifiable reason t o enlarge t he applicant on bail at t his j unct ure.

14. The applicant m ay, however, t he prayer aft er m at erial prosecut ion wit nesses are exam ined.

15. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion st ands rej ect ed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 26.03.2025 SB 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 4