[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Prabhjeet vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
order with 2026:UHC:1290
Signatures
BA1 No. 128 of 2026
Prabhjeet --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Siddharth Tomar and Ms. Geeta Sajwan, learned counsels
for the Applicant.
2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant
- Prabhjeet, aged about 20 years, S/o Mr. Ranveer Singh, R/o Ward
No. 19, Gyan Vihar Colony, Doiwala, Dehradun. The Applicant is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 260 of 2025,
registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, under Sections
351(3), 65(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 3/4 of the POCSO
Act.
4. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Tomar and Ms. Geeta Sajwan, learned
counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder
for the State. Perused the record.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2025, the present
Applicant allegedly took the victim to a hotel at Bhaniawala while she
was returning home from school, established physical relations with
her, and thereafter threatened her, stating that if she refused to speak
with him, he would kill her family members.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant
has been falsely implicated and is a innocent person. It is further
submitted that there is a delay of four months in lodging the FIR and
that there are several contradictions in the victim's statements recorded
under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. and the contents of the
FIR. It is also argued that the grounds of arrest were not properly
communicated and that there is no definite medical opinion regarding
sexual or physical assault. It is further submitted that the Applicant and
the victim were acquainted since their school days and were in contact
through social media. There is no CCTV footage or hotel register entry
on record to establish that the Applicant took the victim to any hotel.
The Applicant has no criminal history, is only 20 years of age, and his
future prospects would be adversely affected if he remains in custody.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail
application, contending that the Applicant has committed a serious
offence of rape upon a minor girl aged about 14 years. It is submitted
that there is direct involvement of the Applicant in the commission of
the offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
seriousness of the offence, the age of the victim, and the role attributed
to the Applicant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
Applicant at this stage.
9. 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.)
25.02.2026
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c
12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,
BINJOLA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED
00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.02.25 16:39:18 +05'30'
