Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2014/2025 on 18 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2798
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No.2014 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular
bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.285 of 2024,
under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S.
and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, registered
at Police Station Transit Camp, District
Udham Singh Nagar.
3. As per the prosecution version, a
missing report was lodged by the father
of the victim alleging that his minor
daughter had gone missing. During
investigation, the victim subsequently
returned to her home and her
statements were recorded by the
investigating agency.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated and is not having any
criminal antecedents. It is further
submitted that the applicant is in judicial
custody since 20.10.2024 and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or tampering
with evidence. It is also pointed out that
in her statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she knew
the applicant and had gone with him of
her own volition, whereas in her
statement as PW-1 before the Court she
has completely resiled and denied the
prosecution version, rendering the
2026:UHC:2798
evidence materially contradictory. It is
argued that such inconsistencies go to
the root of the prosecution case and
require detailed appreciation at trial. The
allegations, even if taken at their face
value, do not prima facie disclose
commission of any grave offence
warranting continued incarceration,
particularly when the case rests on
disputed and self-contradictory
statements. The applicant is therefore
entitled to bail.
5. Having considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on
record, it appears that the F.I.R. was
lodged on the basis of a missing report
given by the father of the victim, alleging
that his minor daughter had gone
missing. At this stage, the prosecution
case thus rests primarily on statements
which are not consistent and require
detailed examination during trial. The
contradictions between the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the
testimony before the Court raise issues
of credibility, which cannot be
conclusively adjudicated at the stage of
bail. The applicant is stated to be in
judicial custody since 20.10.2024 and
there is no material to indicate any
likelihood of his absconding or tampering
with evidence. He is stated to have no
criminal antecedents. The trial is likely to
take considerable time to conclude, and
prolonged incarceration without a prima
facie finding of guilt would not be
justified.
6. Considering the nature of
allegations, the contradictory statements
of the prosecutrix, the period of custody
already undergone, and the absence of
apprehension regarding flight risk or
2026:UHC:2798
tampering with evidence, without
expressing any opinion on the ultimate
merits of the matter, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicant has
made out a case for grant of bail at this
stage. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant-Vikas Prasad be
released on bail, on executing personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of like amount, to the satisfaction of
Court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
18.04.2026
Arpan
ARPAN Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb
JAISWAL
7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744
6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.04.18 17:16:22 +05’30’