Usman Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1587 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Usman Khan vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 February, 2026

                                                       2026:UHC:1380
                                        Reserved on 24.02.2026
                                        Delivered on 27.02.2026


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
         First Bail Application No. 1156 of 2025


Usman Khan                                      ................Applicant

                              Versus

State Of Uttarakhand                            ............Respondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present first bail application has been filed

by the applicant Usman Khan, who is in judicial custody

in connection with FIR No. 0021 of 2025 (Special

Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2025), Police Station Mallital,

District Nainital. The case has been registered under

Sections 65(1), 351(1) B.N.S., Sections 3 & 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

(POCSO) and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(v)(ii) of the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The applicant seeks release on

bail.

2026:UHC:1380

2. As per the FIR dated 30.04.2025 lodged by the

mother of the victim, the alleged incident took place on

12.04.2025 at about 6:30 p.m. It is alleged that the

applicant lured the minor victim with ₹200/-, took her

inside a red car parked in his garage, threatened her

with a knife and committed rape. It is further alleged

that the applicant threatened the victim not to disclose

the incident to anyone. The matter was reported after

the victim disclosed the incident to her mother.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would

submit that there is an unexplained delay of 18 days in

lodging the FIR; that, the medical examination does not

support the allegation of rape and no internal or

external injuries were found; that, the CCTV footage of

the relevant date does not show any red car being taken

inside the garage; that, the garage was occupied with

construction material and no car could be parked

inside; that, the D.N.A. examination does not support

the prosecution case.

4. He would further submit that this is not a case

of sterling witness as there are inconsistencies in the

statement of the victim and material contraction with

the statement of other prosecution witnesses examined

2026:UHC:1380 so far; that, the applicant is 71 years old, has no

criminal history, and is in jail since 30.04.2025; that,

charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely

to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, it is

prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. In support of his case, he relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Nirmal Premkumar and Another Vs. State Rep. by

Inspector of Police 2024 SCC OnLine SC 260, Hon'ble

Supreme Court has acquitted two teachers who were

previously convicted under the POCSO Act for alleged

sexual harassment of a minor student. The Supreme

Court set aside the convictions upheld by the Madras

High Court, citing material contradictions in the

evidence, lack of corroboration, and "half-baked".

6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate

General for the State would vehemently oppose the bail

application contending that during the course of

investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded

under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., wherein

she has consistently supported the prosecution case. It

is further submitted that the victim was medically

examined on 30.04.2025. The medical examination

2026:UHC:1380 report notes injury marks on the neck of the victim and

mild redness around the anal region. It is argued that

these medical findings lend prima facie corroboration to

the allegations made in the First Information Report and

strengthen the prosecution case at the stage of

consideration of bail.

7. Learned State counsel further submits that

during investigation it has transpired that the applicant

committed two separate incidents of sexual assault

upon the victim at different places; that, the

Investigating Officer has prepared separate site plans of

both the places of occurrence. It is further contended

that the offences alleged against the applicant are grave

and heinous in nature; that, out of the total listed

prosecution witnesses, two witnesses have already been

examined before the trial court; that, the victim resides

in the same locality as the applicant, and as per the

statement of the examining Doctor, the victim is under

fear and psychological distress. It is argued that if the

applicant is released on bail, there exists a real and

imminent apprehension that he may intimidate or

influence the victim and other prosecution witnesses,

thereby causing further trauma to the victim and

2026:UHC:1380 prejudicing the fairness of the trial.

8. Lastly, it is submitted by learned State counsel

that the applicant is financially well-off, whereas the

victim's family belongs to a weaker socio-economic

background. In such circumstances, there exists a

substantial likelihood of the applicant exerting

influence, directly or indirectly, upon the witnesses and

tampering with prosecution evidence. Therefore, having

regard to the gravity of the offence, the stage of trial, the

apprehension of witness intimidation, and the need to

ensure a free, fair and impartial trial, it is urged that the

applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

9. In support of the aforesaid submissions

regarding the necessity of a fair trial and prevention of

witness intimidation, reliance is placed upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira

Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC

158, wherein it has been held that a fair trial is the

heart of criminal jurisprudence and includes fairness

not only to the accused but also to the victim and

society at large. The Court observed that denial of a fair

trial is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim

and the society, and that courts are duty-bound to

2026:UHC:1380 ensure that the trial proceeds uninfluenced by

extraneous considerations. Reliance is also placed on

State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while

considering bail in serious offences, the Court must take

into account the nature and gravity of the accusation,

the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing

witnesses, and the larger interest of society.

10. Further reliance is placed upon Mahipal v.

Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, wherein it was

reiterated that grant of bail in serious offences must be

exercised judiciously and the Court must consider

whether there exists a prima facie case and whether

release of the accused would prejudice a fair trial. On

the strength of the aforesaid settled principles of law,

learned State counsel submits that in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, enlargement of the

applicant on bail would adversely affect the fairness of

the trial and the administration of justice.

11. Learned counsel for the complainant has

supported the arguments made by the State and

opposed the bail application. He submits that the

victim's statement is clear and consistent, and at this

2026:UHC:1380 important stage of the trial, granting bail may put

pressure on the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses and could lead to intimidation.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

13. The allegations against the applicant are

serious and relate to offences under the POCSO Act and

the SC/ST Act. At the time of considering bail under

Section 483 B.N.S.S., the Court is not required to closely

examine contradictions, inconsistencies, or the detailed

strength of the evidence. The Court only needs to see

whether a prima facie case is made out based on the

material collected during investigation. It is also not

disputed that the trial has already started and two

prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore,

the case is at an advanced stage, and evidence is

currently being recorded before the learned Trial Court.

14. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations,

the nature and seriousness of the offence, the statement

of the victim recorded during investigation, and the

likelihood of the applicant influencing witnesses, and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the

2026:UHC:1380 applicant at this stage.

15. Accordingly, the first bail application is

dismissed.

16. Since the trial has already begun and

prosecution witnesses are being examined, the learned

Trial Court is requested to make every endeavor to

conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within three months. The trial court shall, as

far as practicable, conduct the proceedings on a day-to-

day basis. In view of the mandate akin to Section 309

Cr.P.C., once the examination of witnesses starts, it

should ordinarily continue from day to day until the

witnesses present are examined, unless special reasons

are recorded in writing and the adjournments should

not be granted routinely when witnesses are in

attendance, and inconvenience of counsel cannot be

treated as a valid ground for adjournment. At this

advanced stage, any unnecessary delay would defeat the

object of a speedy trial. The Trial Court is, therefore,

directed to strictly adhere to the statutory mandate

while proceeding with the case.

                                                                               (ALOK MAHRA,J.)
             MAMT                                                                 27.02.2026
Mamta        A RANI

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af 1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd6426713 29b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd5485 2c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d 8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.02.27 11:11:24 +05'30'