Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/277/2025 on 29 April, 2026
2026:UHC:3265
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA2/277/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Chirag Goswami, learned
counsel for the applicant through Video
Conferencing.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application is filed
on behalf of the applicant seeking grant
of regular bail in connection with
F.I.R./Case Crime No. 143 of 2024
(Special Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2024),
under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and
376(3) of the I.P.C. and Sections
3(A)/4(ii), 5(l)/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
registered at Police Station SIDCUL,
District Haridwar.
4. This is the second bail application.
The first bail application of the applicant
was rejected on merits by this Court
vide order dated 30.04.2025.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, as per the
prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged
by the father of the victim alleging that
his 13-year-old daughter, who had gone
missing on 21.03.2024 at about 10:00
a.m., could not be traced despite efforts.
It is further alleged that the complainant
later suspected that the present
applicant had taken his daughter away,
and when he tried to contact the
2026:UHC:3265
applicant on his mobile phone, the calls
were not answered; that, the
Investigating Officer after completion of
investigation has submitted chargesheet
against the present applicant.
7. It is further submitted that the
applicant is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case
without any credible material; that,
there is an unexplained delay of about
32 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that, there
is no statement of any independent
witness; that, the principal and
additional ground for grant of bail is
that the arrest of the applicant suffers
from patent illegality as the grounds of
arrest were neither recorded in the
arrest memo nor communicated to the
applicant in writing, which is in
violation of settled legal principles.
8. It is also submitted that the
applicant is in judicial custody since
03.04.2024.; that, the applicant is a
young person aged about 21 years, and
his continued incarceration would
seriously affect his future; that, the trial
is likely to take considerable time to
conclude, therefore, the applicant is
entitled for bail.
9. On the direction of this Court,
learned State counsel has produced a
copy of the arrest memo, which is taken
on record. The Registry is directed to
paginate the same as per record.
10. A perusal of the arrest memo
reveals that the grounds of arrest have
neither been clearly recorded therein nor
communicated to the applicant in
writing.
11. Considering the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties, the
2026:UHC:3265
period of incarceration, the delay in
lodging the F.I.R., and the apparent
procedural lapse regarding
communication of grounds of arrest,
and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, this Court is of
the view that the applicant has made
out a case for grant of bail.
12. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application
is allowed.
13. Let the applicant, Ankit, be
released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties
of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
MAMTA (Alok Mahra, J.) Mamta RANI 29.04.2026 Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af144
9e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9
e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004
ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.30 17:21:29 +05’30’
2026:UHC:3265
