2025:UHC:1448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.1954 of 2023 Rohit Thapa ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) This bail application has been filed by the applicant, Rohit Thapa, aged 22 years, S/o Tilak Bahadur R/O Haripur Kala Motichoor, Raiwala Dehradun, registered at police station Kotwali Haridwar District Haridwar under Sections 376(3) and 506 of IPC along with Sections 3(a)/4(2) of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. At the outset, it is contended on behalf of applicant that the victim and the applicant were known to each other through a social media platform known as “Instagram” as it is evident from the record; that prima facie shows a relationship having being formed between both of them. 4. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to a financial dispute with the victim’s family. 1 5. It has been submitted that there is no CCTV footage, the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay, and the medical report does not conclusively support the allegations. It is further contended that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is the sole breadwinner for his family, and has been in custody since 02.08.2023. The applicant has assured full cooperation with the investigation and is willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court. It is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations and the minor status of the victim. It is argued that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. remain consistent and that releasing the applicant at this stage may result in witness tampering or undue influence on the trial. 7. It is argued by the state that on 31.07.2023, while the victim was on her way to tuitions, she was allegedly lured by the applicant to Hotel La Plazo, where he booked a room using a false identity and provided her with a cold drink laced with some intoxicant that left her disoriented, following which he committed the alleged offense and threatened her not to disclose it. The victim initially remained silent but later informed her mother, leading to the registration of the FIR on 02.08.2023. 8. Thus, there being no sufficient grounds for bail and the matter being of serious nature, it is requested on behalf of state that the present bail application may be rejected. 9. After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, this court observes that the statements of the victim, as recorded by the learned trial court, are void of any cross examination. On behalf of the accused, it indicates that while examining the witness, the accused was not given a fair chance of hearing or otherwise the statements could have shown the defence of the accused. 10. In the opinion of the Court, the statements are only partially recorded, whereby the opportunity of accused has been closed. It would have been judicious on part of the trial court that the accused should have been given a fair chance of recording his version during the cross examination of the victim. Hence, this court finds grounds of bail sufficient at this juncture without going into the merits of the case. 11. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant be released on bail, subject to the condition that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.02.2025