[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mahak vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGES'S
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2717
BA1 No. 41 of 2026
Mahak ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant-Mahak @ Deepshikha, D/o Shri Prakash Malik, R/o Gali
No. 28, Shivaji Nagar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The Applicant
is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 693 of
2024 (Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2025), registered at Police Station
Rishikesh, District Dehradun, for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 96, 65(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 16/17 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the
Applicant, and Mr. N.S. Kaniyal, learned A.G.A. for the State. The
record has been perused.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case and has been
languishing in judicial custody since 01.12.2024. It is contended that
there are no specific allegations of administering any intoxicant or
committing rape against the Applicant, and that the alleged acts are
attributed to the co-accused, namely, Shashank and Hemant Sharma.
It is further contended that there is no allegation that the Applicant
took the victim forcibly; rather, the victim accompanied the
Applicant of her own will to attend a birthday party. The victim, in
her statement, has stated that she herself went along with "Mahak
didi", i.e., the present Applicant. It is also submitted that the
Applicant is a young girl, aged about 21 years, having no criminal
antecedents and no direct role in the alleged offence. It is argued
that her continued incarceration would seriously prejudice her future
prospects and career. It is further contended that the Applicant
neither administered any intoxicant to the victim nor participated in
the alleged offence, and that the incident, if any, arose out of
circumstances beyond her involvement.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the
bail application, submitting that there is sufficient material on record
against the Applicant. It is contended that the statements of the
victim were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S.,
and on the basis of the said statements, the involvement and role of
the Applicant, along with the co-accused, have come to light. It is
further submitted that, as per the statement of the Principal recorded
under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the date of birth of the
victim is 09.05.2010, thereby indicating that the victim is a minor.
7. This Court is of the view that, in the alleged incident of
kidnapping a minor girl, the present Applicant appears to have
played an instrumental role in enticing the victim and taking her
away. The material on record further prima facie indicates that, in
connivance with the co-accused, namely, Shashank and Hemant
Sharma, the victim was taken to a hotel, where she was
administered an intoxicant and subjected to sexual exploitation.
Thus, the Applicant cannot be said to be a mere bystander, and her
role appears to be an integral part of the alleged offence, prima facie
attracting the ingredients of criminal conspiracy.
8. After hearing the rival submissions and considering the
material available on record, this Court is of the considered view
that, at this stage, no sufficient ground is made out for grant of bail.
The contention that the victim accompanied the Applicant of her
own will does not enure to the benefit of the Applicant, particularly
in view of the fact that the victim is a minor and the material on
record prima facie indicates the involvement of the Applicant in the
commission of the alleged offence.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the Applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the Bail Application is
rejected.
10. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are
only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and
shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.
11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
16.04.2026
Shiksha
