HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 230 of 2024 Subal Haldar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.213 of 2021, under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.2816 of 2021, was rejected on 28.11.2022. 4. According to the FIR, on 06.08.2021, at about 9:30 PM, when the victim was asleep in her house, her mother had gone in the neighbourhood. At that time, the applicant, who stays close by, entered in the house of the 2 victim, bolted the door from inside, forcibly tried to insert his finger in the vagina of the victim. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of the first bail application, other witnesses have been examined; PW6 Malti has not supported the prosecution case; she had admitted that there was no chitkani in the house of the victim. Therefore, it is argued that the statement of the victim gets falsified when she had said that the applicant entered into the room and bolted the door from inside. It is also submitted that, in fact, PW6, Malti, has, in material particulars, not supported the prosecution case; the medical does not support the prosecution case; in the medical, the victim has only stated that the applicant attempted to insert his finger in the vagina; the applicant is in custody for about four years now. From the date of incident, the applicant is arrested; the trial is prolonged; till date, only 8 witnesses have been examined. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. He admits that till date, only 8 witnesses have been examined. 7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no 3 bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 8. According to the mother of the victim, soon after the incident, PW6, Malti, had told it to her that she had seen the victim coming out from her room while crying; the victim has also stated that when the applicant entered into her room, he had bolted the door from inside, and then she tried to open the door and run away, after the applicant tried to insert his finger in her vagina. PW6, Malti, has stated that there was no chitkani in the house of the victim. According to her, she had not seen the victim moving to her mother. 9. Having considered the facts and the period of custody, which the applicant has already undergone, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 01.07.2025 Ravi Bisht