[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1932/2025 on 11 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1602
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.1932 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in
F.I.R. No.240 of 2025, under Section 137(2),
87, 64 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 5/6 of
POCSO Act, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar.
3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the
victim alleging that his daughter, aged about
17 years, had been missing from the house
since 20.05.2025. The F.I.R. came to be
lodged after three days, i.e., on 23.05.2025.
During the course of investigation, the victim
along with the applicant was recovered on
28.05.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and has been in
judicial custody since 28.05.2025. It is further
submitted that the victim was medically
examined and no external injury was found on
her person, however, the hymen was reported
to be ruptured and old healed. Learned
counsel further submits that the statements
of the victim were recorded under Sections
180 and 183 of the B.N.S., wherein she stated
that she had gone with the applicant on her
own free will and without any coercion. It is
further contended that when the victim
appeared before the trial Court as P.W.-1, she
did not support the prosecution case and
specifically denied the allegations, including
any physical relationship with the applicant.
She also stated before the Court that her
2026:UHC:1602
earlier statement recorded under Section 183
B.N.S. was made under fear of the Magistrate
and that she had given an incorrect statement
at that time. It is submitted that, in the event
the applicant is granted bail, he shall not
misuse the liberty of bail and shall furnish
adequate sureties to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
5. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on
record, this Court finds that the victim was
about 17 years of age at the time of the
alleged incident. The victim has already been
recovered and has subsequently appeared
before the trial Court as P.W.-1, wherein she
has not supported the prosecution case and
has denied the allegations levelled against the
applicant. It also appears from the record that
no external injury was found on the person of
the victim during medical examination. The
applicant has been in judicial custody since
28.05.2025 and has already undergone a
considerable period of incarceration.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the
statement of the victim before the trial Court,
the period of incarceration already undergone
by the applicant, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is
of the considered view that the applicant has
made out a fit case for grant of bail at this
stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant, namely, Mohd. Nazim
be released on bail, on executing personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of like amount, to the satisfaction of
Court.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
11.03.2026
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: 2026.03.11 17:30:14 +05'30'
