[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1563/2025 on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1890
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1563/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Deepak Chandra and Mr. B.S.
Koranga, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Applicant - Khalid Hussain, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 171 of 2025, registered
under Sections 127, 143(3) and 351(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, has moved the present bail
application seeking his bail during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per the prosecution case, the First
Information Report was lodged by the
complainant/victim alleging that she is a
poor girl and was searching for a job; that,
one of her friends provided her with a
mobile number for employment in a Spa
Centre at Kashipur. It is alleged that when
the victim contacted the said number over
phone, the person on the other side invited
her to Kashipur for the said job; that, acting
upon the said assurance, she reached a
house at Kashipur where about six other
girls were already present. It is further
alleged that the said person used to take
the girls in his car to the Spa Centre and
assured them that they would be paid a
handsome salary as customers from outside
would visit the centre. However, thereafter
he allegedly asked the girls to establish
physical relations with the customers in
lieu of money. When the victim and other
girls refused to indulge in such activities,
the said person allegedly called the owner of
the Spa Centre on phone. Thereafter, the
2026:UHC:1890
present applicant along with other persons
allegedly gave various temptations to the
girls and also threatened them with dire
consequences, including threats to their
lives, in case they refused to do the said
work.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the
present case; that, the police authorities,
without conducting a proper and fair
investigation, have implicated the applicant
merely on the basis of suspicion; that, the
applicant had no nexus with the alleged
offence and he was not arrested from the
spot; that, a bare perusal of the F.I.R.
would show that the complainant had
initially spoken to some other person and
not to the present applicant and that the
co-accused allegedly made the complainant
talk to the applicant on phone; that, the
applicant neither personally met the
complainant nor extended any threat to
her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant is
in judicial custody since 14.07.2025; that,
the applicant has no criminal antecedents
and is not a previous convict; that, the
court below has rejected the bail application
of the applicant vide order dated
04.08.2025; that, the trial is likely to take
considerable time for its conclusion and,
therefore, the applicant deserves to be
released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the bail
application and submits that serious
allegations have been levelled against the
applicant; that, the victim, in her statement
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., has
supported the prosecution version; that,
during the course of investigation the rent
agreement of the premises, where the girls
were allegedly kept, was found in the name
2026:UHC:1890
of the present applicant, which prima facie
indicates his involvement in the alleged
activities.
8. It is also pointed out that another
F.I.R. has been registered against the
applicant under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956
as well as Section 143 of the B.N.S., 2023,
relating to similar allegations. In view of the
gravity of the offence and the material
collected during investigation, it is
submitted that the applicant is not entitled
to be enlarged on bail.
9. After considering the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the material available on record,
this Court finds that the allegations against
the applicant relate to running activities of
immoral trafficking and exploitation of girls
under the pretext of providing employment
in a Spa Centre. The statement of the victim
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. prima
facie supports the prosecution case.
10. It is further noted that during
investigation the rent agreement of the
premises in question was found in the
name of the present applicant, which prima
facie connects him with the place where the
alleged activities were being carried on.
Moreover, another criminal case under the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is
also stated to be pending against the
applicant, which cannot be ignored at this
stage.
11. Considering the nature and gravity of
the allegations, the material collected
during investigation, and the prima facie
involvement of the applicant, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail
at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the bail application is
rejected.
MAMT Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
(Alok Mahra, J.)
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
A
584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67eb
bd642671329b,
17.03.2026
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
RANI
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a
Mamta 191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.19 15:05:02 +05'30'
2026:UHC:1890
