[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1351/2025 on 19 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1912
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1351/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Aoop Jaiswal, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. along
with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Applicant - Mahendra, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
F.I.R./Case Crime No. 218 of 2025,
registered under Section 64(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Sections 5/6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012, Police Station Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his
release on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
by the brother of the alleged victim
alleging therein that on 18.05.2024,
when the elder sister of the complainant
woke up at about 01:00 a.m., she
allegedly saw the applicant and the
victim in a compromising condition. It
was further alleged that the applicant
had enticed the victim on the false
pretext of love.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that the applicant
is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the statements of the
victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 of the B.N.S.S. indicate that the
applicant and the victim were in a love
relationship and that they had
2026:UHC:1912
established physical relations several
times out of their own volition. It is
further stated by the victim that she had
never attended school at any point of
time.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel
has would vehemently oppose the bail
application and, placing reliance upon
the counter affidavit, submitted that
during the course of investigation it was
found that the victim had been enrolled
in a school on 07.07.2014 and had
studied there; that, as per the school
record, her date of birth is recorded as
13.02.2009, which prima facie indicates
that she was a minor on the date of the
alleged incident.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant,
however, submits that there exists a
serious dispute regarding the age of the
victim. In this regard, the applicant
moved an application before the learned
F.T.C./Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Udham
Singh Nagar seeking a bone ossification
test, which was allowed vide order dated
21.05.2025 and pursuant thereto, the
victim was medically examined by a
medical board and as per the ossification
test report, the age of the victim was
assessed to be more than 18 years and
less than 20 years. It is thus contended
that the victim was major at the time of
the alleged occurrence and, therefore,
the provisions of the POCSO Act would
not be attracted. A copy of the order
dated 21.05.2025 along with the
ossification test report has been placed
before the Court.
8. It is further submitted that even if
any physical relationship was
established between the applicant and
2026:UHC:1912
the victim, the same was consensual in
nature, as reflected from the statement
of the victim. It is also contended that
the school leaving certificate relied upon
by the prosecution was procured after
lodging of the F.I.R., casting doubt upon
its authenticity.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also submitted that the applicant is
in judicial custody since 23.06.2025;
that, the alleged victim was not
recovered from the possession of the
applicant; that, the applicant has no
previous criminal history; and that his
earlier bail application has been rejected
by the court below vide order dated
14.07.2025. It is further submitted that
the applicant is a permanent resident of
District Udham Singh Nagar, and there
is no likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution
evidence; that, conclusion of trial is
likely to take considerable time,
therefore, the applicant be released on
bail.
10. Learned State counsel does not
dispute the application moved by the
applicant for conducting the ossification
test, nor the medical report produced by
the applicant before the Court.
11. The order dated 21.05.2025 passed
by the learned F.T.C./Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO),
Udham Singh Nagar, along with the
ossification test report, produced before
the Court, is taken on record. The
Registry is directed to paginate the
same.
12. Having considered the rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that
2026:UHC:1912
the age of the victim is a matter of
dispute, as the prosecution relies upon
the school record indicating the date of
birth as 13.02.2009, whereas the
ossification test report assesses the age
of the victim to be between 18 and 20
years. At this stage, the medical opinion
creates a prima facie doubt regarding the
minority of the victim. This Court further
finds that the victim in her statement
has stated that she was in a love
relationship with the applicant and that
the physical relations were established
with her consent.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is of the view that
the applicant has been able to make out
a prima facie case for grant of bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
15. Let the applicant be released on bail
in the aforesaid case crime number on
his furnishing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
MAM 19.03.2026
Mamta UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
TA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2
44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0
9a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9
RANI
cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d
d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef
0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.20 11:09:30
+05'30'
