Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2051/2025 on 13 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3729
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/2051/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel
or the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. The first bail application has been
moved on behalf of the applicant seeking
grant of regular bail in connection with
F.I.R./Case Crime No. 302 of 2023,
registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506
I.P.C. and Sections 5(l)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, at Police Station Muni Ki
Reti, District Tehri Garhwal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, according to the
prosecution case, the complainant
lodged the F.I.R. alleging that the present
applicant had developed a romantic
relationship with the complainant’s
minor daughter and sexually exploited
her. It is alleged that the applicant had
taken photographs and videos of the
victim and thereafter threatened to make
the same viral unless she established
physical relations with one Ikrar @
Mirchi and the present applicant. It is
further alleged that a few days prior to
2026:UHC:3729
lodging of the F.I.R., the applicant called
the victim to a sugarcane field and, upon
her refusal, threatened to circulate her
videos, due to which she became
frightened and went to the said place,
where the applicant allegedly established
physical relations with her forcibly and
two unknown associates of the applicant
also committed indecent acts with her. It
is further alleged that on 19.07.2023,
when the victim was sleeping at her
home, the complainant noticed her
crying, whereupon the victim narrated
the entire incident to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant
is innocent and has falsely been
implicated in the present case; that no
specific date or time of the alleged
incident has been mentioned in the
F.I.R.; that a plain reading of the F.I.R.
demonstrates that the allegations are
concocted; that, although the
complainant allegedly came to know
about the incident on 19.07.2023, the
F.I.R. came to be lodged only on
26.07.2023, and the delay of about nine
days in lodging the F.I.R. has not been
satisfactorily explained.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that the applicant and the victim
were known to each other, were in a
friendly relationship and used to spend
considerable time together. He would
further submit that the closeness
between the applicant and the victim
was known to the complainant’s family
2026:UHC:3729
and the applicant had earlier been
threatened by the complainant’s family
to stay away from the victim, failing
which he would face dire consequences;
that, there exists prior enmity between
the applicant and the complainant’s
family and there is no independent
witness to the alleged occurrence.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the victim has
not fully supported the prosecution story
in her statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; that the
medical examination report of the victim
also does not support the prosecution
version. It is further submitted that, in
her statements, the victim had alleged
that another person, namely Ikrar @
Mirchi, had also established physical
relations with her; however, during her
cross-examination conducted on behalf
of the said co-accused in proceedings
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., she denied
the said allegation, thereby creating
material contradictions in the
prosecution case.
8. Learned counsel would further
submit that the bail application of the
applicant has already been rejected by
the court below vide order dated
30.11.2024; that, the applicant is
languishing in jail since 16.08.2023;
that, the applicant is a permanent
resident of District Haridwar and,
therefore, there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence; that, the trial is
2026:UHC:3729
likely to take considerable time to
conclude and, therefore, the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the bail
application and submitted that at the
time of the alleged incident, the victim
was aged about 16 years and 4 months;
that, the victim, in her statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., as well as before the doctor who
medically examined her, has consistently
supported and corroborated the
prosecution case by specifically alleging
that the present applicant forcibly
established physical relations with her.
10. Learned State counsel would
further submit that the victim has also
been examined before the trial Court as
P.W.-1 and, in her deposition, she
reiterated the allegations levelled against
the present applicant; that, although
there may be certain inconsistencies in
the victim’s statement regarding the role
attributed to co-accused Ikrar @ Mirchi,
the same do not affect the allegations
against the present applicant; that,
according to the prosecution, the victim
has remained consistent with regard to
the role of the present applicant in her
statements under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., before the medical officer, as
well as in her testimony before the trial
Court, and the same fully corroborate
the prosecution case, therefore, the
applicant is not entitled for bail at this
stage.
2026:UHC:3729
11. It is not in dispute that at the time
of the alleged incident, the victim was a
minor aged about 16 years and 4 months
and the victim, in her statements
recorded under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C., as well as before the doctor who
medically examined her, has specifically
alleged that the present applicant had
established physical relations with her
against her will. The victim has also been
examined before the trial Court as P.W.-
1 and, so far as the role of the present
applicant is concerned, she has
consistently supported the prosecution
case. So far as the contention of learned
counsel for the applicant regarding
contradictions in the statement of the
victim with respect to co-accused Ikrar @
Mirchi is concerned, the said
contradiction does not materially affect
the allegations levelled against the
present applicant. Prima facie, the
statements of the victim regarding the
involvement of the present applicant
remain consistent and duly corroborate
the prosecution story.
12. Considering the gravity and nature
of allegations, the specific role assigned
to the applicant, the fact that the victim
is a minor, and the material available on
record, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail at this
stage.
13. Accordingly, the bail application is
hereby rejected.
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF (Alok Mahra, J.)
MAMT
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3
13.05.2026
Mamta e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67e
bbd642671329b,
A RANI
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cab
fd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690
a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.18 15:54:46 +05’30’
2026:UHC:3729
[ad_1]
Source link
