Sajjan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1965 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sajjan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 16 March, 2026

                                                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures                                                             2026:UHC:1768


                               BA1 No. 287 of 2026

                               Sajjan Kumar                    --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand          --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Chitrartha Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant, namely Sajjan Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Virendra Lal, R/o Village Darmola (Kala Pahad), Post Mai Ki Mandi, P.O. Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 03 of 2026, registered at Police Station Rudraprayag, District Rudraprayag, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC.

4. Heard Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is enormous delay in lodging the FIR, and there is no explanation for such delay, which creates serious doubt over the prosecution case. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the FIR it reveals that no specific date and time have been mentioned regarding the alleged sexual assault by the Applicant. It is also submitted that the Applicant is an innocent person aged about 31 years, having no previous criminal history, and he is in jail since 15.01.2026. It is further contended that the Applicant never made any false promise of marriage nor committed any offence of rape with the complainant, and the FIR is vague in nature, therefore no case is made out under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 16.03.2026 SB