Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1580/2025 on 16 February, 2026
2026:UHC:971
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1580/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta along with Mr. Raft Munir Ali, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State.
3. Applicant - Mumtaj @ Monu, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 222 of 2025, registered under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged on 11.06.2025 alleging that the complainant, a resident of Village Harsan and a student of Class 11 in the year 2022, was below 18 years of age at the relevant time. It is alleged that the applicant used to follow her, introduced himself as "Monu," expressed false love, and developed a relationship with her for about one and a half years. It is further alleged that the applicant used to keep her mobile phone and send messages from it. In the year 2024, when the complainant allegedly came to know that "Monu" was actually Mumtaj and that he was already married and had three children, she became distressed and started maintaining distance from him. 2026:UHC:971 Thereafter, the applicant allegedly continued to follow her to school and coaching centre, caught hold of her hand on some occasions, forcibly made her sit in his vehicle, and on 02.06.2025 made a video call which was received by her brother and upon being asked to keep distance, the applicant allegedly threatened the family with dire consequences.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that both the applicant and the complainant reside in the same village. It is argued that the complainant was fully aware of the applicant's identity and religion, particularly as her cousin sister is married to the applicant. Therefore, the allegation that she was misled regarding his name, religion, and marital status is stated to be false.
7. It is further submitted that during investigation, in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S., the victim made allegations regarding certain objectionable videos and harassment, and stated that the applicant had taken her to a hotel at Kaladhungi. However, upon inquiry by the Investigating Officer, she allegedly failed to identify the said hotel. In her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., it is submitted that certain aspects regarding the place of occurrence were not clearly stated. It is further contended that during medical examination, the victim stated that the last sexual relations were in June 2023.
8. Learned counsel submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the complainant, creating doubt in the prosecution story. It is also contended that there is an unexplained 2026:UHC:971 delay of more than two years in lodging the F.I.R. Further, the complainant's claim that she became aware of the applicant's religion only later is alleged to be improbable, as the applicant's wife is her cousin sister.
9. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that there is no credible evidence of any relationship when the complainant was a minor; that he is in custody since 16.06.2025; that his bail application was rejected by the court below on 30.07.2025; that he is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of absconding; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application but fairly admits that the applicant is in custody since 16.06.2025 and that his earlier bail application was rejected on 30.07.2025.
11. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the prosecution case, at this stage, is founded primarily upon the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses recorded during investigation under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The charge-sheet is substantially based on these statements. The veracity, reliability, voluntariness and evidentiary value of such statements are matters which can be adjudicated only during trial, after the witnesses enter the witness-box and are subjected to cross- examination. Any inconsistencies, omissions or improvements can be duly appreciated only upon full-fledged trial.
2026:UHC:971 At the stage of consideration of bail, a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudication on disputed questions of fact is neither permissible nor warranted.
12. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the settled principles governing grant of bail, the nature of accusations, the material collected during investigation, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the fact that the guilt of the accused is yet to be established by cogent evidence during trial, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the applicant at this stage is not justified.
13. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 16.02.2026 Mamta