Uttarakhand High Court
Vijay Kohli vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No.86 of 2026
Vijay Kohli ....Applicant
(In Jail)
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Presence: Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Chittrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. By means of the present bail application applicant-Vijay
Kohli has sought his release in connection with Special Session Trial
No.23 of 2025 arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.01 of 2025 under
Section 323, 363, 376, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4, 11/12 of
POCSO Act and Section 67 (b) IT Act, Revenue Patti Bhuvaneshwar,
Tehsil Berinag, District Pithoragarh.
2. According to the FIR daughter of Chandan Singh Saun, resident
of village Simayal, Patti Bhuvneshwar, Tehsil Berinag, District
Pithoragarh is 17 years old. On 01.02.2025 his nephew informed him
about the obscene video of his daughter-victim, which has been made in
an objectionable position. When he insisted and asked his daughter-
victim about the same she told that when she was studying in class 10th
at Vivekananda Inter College, Gangolihat, then Vijay Kohli-applicant,
used to harass her every day, so she started talking to him on his
mobile. One November 2021, Vijay Kohli-applicant lured her and took
her with him to his sister’s house in Pithoragarh and forcibly made
physical relations and raped her and also made her obscene video and
1
First Bail Application No.86 of 2026 Vijay Kohli vs. State of Uttarakhand————–
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1604
told her that if she told anyone about this, he would kill her and also
made her video viral.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits at the outset that firstly
the parity must be given to the applicant as other four co-accused have
been bailed out. Secondly, it is stated that the allegations that have been
alleged against the applicant that he had made obscene mobile video of
the victim is false and cannot be taken at the face of it firstly because it
is not supported with a certification that is required as per law under
Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act and there is nothing to
support the same from the FSL; besides this at this era of artificial
intelligence (AI) such video can be morphed and be made with artificial
intelligence and, therefore, certification under Section 65(B) of the
Indian Evidence Act is relevant and without that conviction cannot be
based resulting in a benefit for bail for the applicant. Thirdly, it is stated
that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.03.2025 and till today
only two witnesses out of eighteen witnesses have been examined so far
it will take a while for the matter to be concluded and hence it is
requested that he should be enlarged on bail. It is also stated that the
FIR is lodged with delay.
4. Learned State counsel however objects to the said submission and
firstly it is stated that the grounds, so raised regarding parity, cannot be
accorded to the applicant for bail as the present applicant is the main
accused, who had subjected the victim to sexual harassment and
thereafter making the obscene video and later blackmailing her with the
same. As far as the certification under Section 65(B) the Indian
Evidence Act is concerned that is a matter that to be considered on
2
First Bail Application No.86 of 2026 Vijay Kohli vs. State of Uttarakhand————–
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1604
merit and will be seen at the stage of evidence. It is also stated that
witness as testified before the court and the witness as stated in her
statement under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. alleging against the accused
that in 2021, she received the friend request of a boy on F.B., and we
started talking and became friends. After a few days, I made him
blocked. Then he started harassing me outside my room. When I went
to my village, he started harassing me by calling me on the villagers’
phones. Then I went to Gangolihat, and he came to my room and started
harassing me. We took a simple photo together. Then this boy showed
me that photo and threatened to send it to my family. Then he told me
to come to Pithoragarh, and he forcibly brought me to Pithoragarh.
Then he took me to his sister’s room, where he forcibly made physical
relation and made a video of me. When I refused, he cut my hand and
threatened to kill me if I didn’t talk to him. Then he made my video
viral.”
5. Having considered the facts and circumstance of the case and
considering the seriousness of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, bail application is rejected.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
11.03.2026
Arti
3
First Bail Application No.86 of 2026 Vijay Kohli vs. State of Uttarakhand————–
Ashish Naithani J.
