[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1979/2025 on 17 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1834
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.1979 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate
General and Mr. N.S. Kanyal, 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.0751 of 2024, under
Section 5(n), 6 of POCSO Act, Sections
3, 4, 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956 read with Section
115(2), 64 of B.N.S., 2023, registered at
Police Station Patel Nagar, District
Dehradun.
3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the victim
on 27.11.2024 at about 01:22 p.m.,
alleging that after the demise of her
father, her stepmother compelled her to
establish physical relations with different
men on a daily basis, and that over the
past six years, the present applicant had
also subjected her to sexual assault. It
was further stated that on the date of
lodging of F.I.R, she, along with her
friend Arshad, somehow managed to
escape from the house and proceeded
directly to lodge the F.I.R. Subsequently,
the matter was investigated and a
charge-sheet came to be filed against
the applicant.
4. In the F.I.R., the victim has stated
her age to be 15 years. Thereafter, an
ossification test was conducted, and as
2026:UHC:1834
per the radiologist's opinion based on X-
ray examination, the estimated
radiological age of the victim was found
to be more than 17 years and less than
18 years. An age certificate in this regard
was issued by the Chief Medical Officer,
Dehradun on 10.01.2025.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present
case and has been languishing in judicial
custody for a considerable period. It is
further submitted that there is no reliable
documentary evidence available on
record to conclusively establish the age
of the victim. Learned counsel further
submits that the applicant is running a
workshop at Rudraprayag and was
known to the victim's father, which fact
stands admitted by the victim in her
statement. He submits that there exist
material contradictions in the statement
of the victim, inasmuch as, she has
asserted that her father passed away
when she was 9 years of age, whereas,
in fact, her father expired in the year
2023. It is lastly submitted that in the
event the applicant is enlarged on bail,
he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and
shall furnish adequate sureties to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
6. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application.
7. Considering the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the nature of accusations, the
fact that the investigation has been
completed and charge sheet has been
filed, the period of incarceration already
undergone by the applicant, the absence
of any conclusive documentary proof
2026:UHC:1834
regarding the age of the victim, and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, this Court is of the
view that the applicant has made out a
case for grant of bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant, namely, Imran 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.)
17.03.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485
365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
JAISWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9
D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE
A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.03.17 17:48:41 +05'30'
