2025:UHC:8730 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1607 of 2025 Soyeb ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate. (through video conferencing). Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. The Applicant – Soyeb is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(a) read with Section 4(2), Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 3. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate, 1 2025:UHC:8730 submitted that the informant (PW1), the father of the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in his cross-examination. The alleged victim (PW2), aged about 14 years and her mother (PW3) have not supported the case of the prosecution in their examination-in-chief. They turned hostile. According to the statement of the doctor, (PW4), the hymen was intact. 4. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is in custody since 21.09.2024. He has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 5. Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder, submitted on instructions that the informant has already been informed. He has opposed the bail application orally. 6. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 2 2025:UHC:8730 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Soyeb 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. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 26.09.2025 Pant/ 3