Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1349/2025 on 28 April, 2026
2026:UHC:3222
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1349/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3. The first bail application moved on
behalf of the applicant seeking grant of
regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case
Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections
376, 363, 366, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, registered at
Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh
Nagar.
4. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R.
was lodged on 23.06.2024 by the mother
of the victim alleging that on the
intervening night of 22.06.2024 at about
12:00 midnight, four persons, including
the present applicant, forcibly entered the
house of the complainant and attempted
to kidnap her daughter by gagging her
mouth. It is further alleged that the
accused persons touched the private parts
of the victim, and upon her resistance and
raising alarm, one of the accused
assaulted her on the head, causing
injuries. It has also been alleged that
approximately three months prior to the
said incident, the applicant had kidnapped
the complainant’s minor daughter, aged
about 17 years, and committed rape upon
her.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated
2026:UHC:3222
due to ulterior motives; that, the
complainant was earlier involved in a case
under the NDPS Act and was incarcerated,
and this Court granted her bail vide order
dated 08.05.2024; that, after being
released from jail, the complainant lodged
the present F.I.R. out of personal vendetta,
as the applicant had assisted the police in
the arrest of the complainant in the said
NDPS case.
6. It is further submitted that there are
material contradictions in the statements
of the victim and the complainant as the
victim, in her statement before the trial
court, has stated that the alleged incident
occurred on 16.04.2024 in a field near
Chaiti Chauraha, whereas the
complainant has stated that the incident
took place on 22.06.2024 at her residence;
that, such glaring inconsistencies render
the prosecution story doubtful.
7. Learned counsel further submits that
the victim refused to undergo medical
examination and, therefore, no medical
evidence has been collected to
substantiate the allegations; that, the
victim is a major, aged about 22 years,
and thus the provisions of the POCSO Act
are not attracted; that, the co-accused
persons, namely Harpal Singh and
Jasvinder Singh, have been exonerated
during investigation and not charge-
sheeted. It is also submitted that with
regard to the earlier allegation of rape
concerning the complainant’s younger
daughter, the police has already submitted
a final report exonerating the applicant.
8. It is further argued that the applicant
is in judicial custody since 23.07.2024 and
that the bail application of the applicant
was earlier rejected by the court below vide
order dated 06.05.2025. It is submitted
that the complainant as well as the victim
2026:UHC:3222
have already been examined before the
trial court and, therefore, there is no
likelihood of tampering with evidence;
that, the applicant is stated to be a
permanent resident of District Udham
Singh Nagar and there is no possibility of
his absconding; that, the trial is likely to
take considerable time to conclude.
9. Learned State Counsel opposes the
bail application on the ground of
seriousness of the allegations; however, he
does not dispute that the complainant and
the victim have already been examined
before the trial court.
10. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the nature of allegations, the
period of incarceration, the contradictions
in the statements of material witnesses,
the fact that the complainant and the
victim have already been examined, 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.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on bail,
on executing personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
like amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned.
MA
Digitally signed by MAMTA
(Alok Mahra, J.)
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
28.04.2026
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46
Mamta f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132
9b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.29 18:51:06
+05’30’
2026:UHC:3222