No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1461 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Gurmeet Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 119 of 2025, under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In the present case, an FIR was lodged on 18.03.2025 by mother of the victim. The victim is about 24 years of age. As per the FIR, the applicant, on the pretext of providing job, called the victim to Kotdwar alongwith 15-20 people and after taking their introductions, told them that they will be informed after the result. Thereafter, the applicant got friendly with the victim and he used to talk with the victim telephonically. Applicant called the victim in the month of February, 2023 to Haridwar regarding some job where he physically abused her. Thereafter, she was sent back to her home. On that date, no complaint was filed by the complainant or the victim herself. Perusal of the FIR reveals that subsequent to this, the applicant used to call and abuse the complainant as well as the victim by saying that he has obscene videos of the victim and he would make it viral and defame the victim. The complainant on several occasions met the applicant and tried to persuade him not to pressurize the victim, but, the applicant has not paid any heed to this. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that all the allegations levelled in the FIR are vague; that the incident is alleged to have been committed in the month of February, 2023 and the FIR was lodged on 18.03.2025, thus, there is a delay of about two years in lodging of the FIR and no such explanation has been given for such a delay and that no such obscene video of the victim was recovered from the mobile of the applicant, as narrated in the FIR. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. Though, it is admitted that perusal of the counter-affidavit does not reveal any obscene video of the victim recovered from the possession of the applicant. 8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in custody since 06.05.2025 and chargesheet has already been filed, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. 9. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that chargesheet has been submitted hence there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, 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 personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra J.) 25.02.2026 Ujjwal