[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/814/2025 on 7 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2435
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.814 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. and Mr.
Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular bail
in Case Crime/F.I.R. No.0403 of 2024,
under Section 376(3) of I.P.C. and Section
3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police
Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case; that he has
no criminal antecedents and has been
languishing in judicial custody for a
considerable period. It is further submitted
that the applicant and the victim were
acquainted with each other and used to
interact and move together. According to
the learned counsel, the said association
was not approved by the victim's family
and, on account thereof, the present F.I.R.
has been falsely instituted, being a fallout of
the alleged relationship between the parties.
It is also contended that the statements of
the victim recorded under Sections 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. cast doubt on the prosecution
case. An undertaking has been given that
the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of
bail, if granted.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
contending that the allegations levelled
against the applicant are of a grave and
heinous nature, involving serious offences,
and therefore, the applicant does not
2026:UHC:2435
deserve any indulgence from this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record, this Court finds that the
accusations against the applicant pertain to
a serious offence of a heinous nature. The
victim, in her statements recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has made
specific and categorical allegations against
the applicant and has fully supported the
prosecution version as set out in the F.I.R.
It is also an admitted position that the
victim was approximately 12 years of age at
the time of the alleged incident, thereby
attracting stringent provisions of law meant
for protection of minors.
6. At this stage, there is no material on
record to discredit the version of the victim
or to infer that the allegations are inherently
improbable. The plea of false implication on
account of alleged opposition by the victim's
family appears to be a matter of defence,
which cannot be adjudicated upon at the
stage of consideration of bail. The
contention regarding alleged inconsistencies
in the statements of the victim also does not
persuade this Court, inasmuch as, such
aspects are to be examined during the
course of trial.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence,
the age of the victim, the nature of
allegations, and the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the view that no case for grant of bail is
made out at this stage.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the bail
application is rejected.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
07.04.2026
Arpan
ARPAN Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb73933
JAISWAL
98f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E
4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.04.07 17:54:33 +05'30'
