Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2154/2025 on 27 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1456
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/2154/2025
With
BA1/2374/2025
With
BA1/2375/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. In both the aforesaid first bail applications, the F.I.R./Case Crime Number as well as the incident in question are the same; therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the bail applications are being decided together by this common order.
4. Applicants - Mohseen, Murad Alam and Moein - are in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 151 of 2025, registered under Sections 115, 352(2), 351(2), 70(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(a)/4, 5(g), (u)/6 and 13/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, have sought their release on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
2026:UHC:1456
6. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant alleging that while the victim was playing in front of her house, two named persons, namely Azam and Alam Khan, allegedly allured her and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that certain other persons reached the spot, prepared an obscene video of the victim and threatened to make the same viral if she refused to establish physical relations with them.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is contended that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R., nor did their names surface during investigation at the initial stage. It is further submitted that the applicants were apprehended without any prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).
8. It is argued that when the victim was examined as PW-1 on 03.10.2025, she took the names of the applicants in her examination-in-chief; however, when she was produced through video conferencing, she failed to recognize the present applicants and only identified one Azam. It is further submitted that even in the subsequent TIP conducted by the court, wherein the applicants were placed behind a glass screen, the victim again failed to identify them.
9. It is further submitted that the applicants were neither present at the place of occurrence nor did they prepare any obscene video; that, their implication is alleged to be based upon a concocted 2026:UHC:1456 story; that, it is also contended that in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S.; that, she did not disclose the names of the present applicants; that, no alleged obscene video has been recovered from the possession of the applicants, nor is there any material to show that they made any such video viral.
10. It is further argued that the victim has not supported the prosecution case against the applicants to the extent of identifying them. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and are in judicial custody since 07.05.2025; that, their bail applications have been rejected by the court below vide orders dated 10.10.2025 and 18.10.2025. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.
11. Learned State counsel opposed the bail applications on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicants; however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicants are in judicial custody since 07.05.2025 and that their earlier bail applications were rejected by the court below.
12. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material brought on record, particularly the fact that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R., their names did not surface in the statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim failed to identify them in the Test Identification Parade as well as during video conferencing, no recovery has been effected from them, this Court is of the 2026:UHC:1456 opinion that the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail.
13. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications deserve to be allowed.
14. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.
15. Let the applicants be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
16. It is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail applications and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 27.02.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e 430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e6 8911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.02.27 19:46:20 +05'30'