IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application 1st No.2133 of 2024 Mukul ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr. Shivam Gulati and Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, learned counsels, for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned DAG, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the applicant, Mukul, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, registered under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(A)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. The applicant has been in custody since 13.05.2024. 2. It has been alleged that on 12.05.2024, the applicant enticed the minor daughter of the complainant and established a physical relationship with her. 3. It is further alleged that the applicant induced the victim to transfer money into his bank account. Based on these allegations, an FIR was lodged by the complainant, and the investigation commenced. The victim's statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in which she stated that the applicant had engaged in a love affair with her and subsequently committed rape. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations are baseless. It has been contended that the victim was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and that she left her house voluntarily. The applicant asserts that the victim’s parents were against their relationship, and due to this, he has been falsely implicated. 1 5. It has been further submitted that there are material contradictions between the victim’s statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., which cast doubt on the state's version. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the medical report does not corroborate the allegations of sexual assault, and no amount was ever transferred to the applicant’s bank account, making the financial inducement claim baseless. 6. Additionally, the applicant has no previous criminal record, and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. 7. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature and involve a minor victim. It has been submitted that the victim, in her statements before the court, has consistently maintained that the applicant established a physical relationship with her and also took money from her through blackmail. 8. The school records confirm that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, making the applicant’s claim of consensual relations untenable. The state argues that if the applicant is released on bail, there is a strong possibility that he will tamper with evidence, influence the victim, or abscond. 9. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties and after perusal of the records, certain aspects require consideration. 10. Firstly, the medical report does not conclusively establish the occurrence of rape. The lack of injuries or medical findings supporting the state's allegations creates doubt regarding the occurrence of forced sexual intercourse. 11. Secondly, the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. contain material contradictions, particularly regarding whether the relationship was forced or consensual. 12. Thirdly, the state has alleged financial inducement, but no material evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim; and 13. Fourthly, the records of the 11th standard were presented before the Court to establish the victim’s age, which raises a reasonable apprehension that if the 11th standard records are available, the 10th standard records must also exist. The reliance of the State on the 11th standard record, despite the likely availability of the 10th standard record, casts doubt on the accuracy of the victim’s stated age. 14. Considering these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or try to influence any witness in any manner. 2. The applicant shall not contact the victim or her family, directly or indirectly, during the pendency of the trial. 3. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed, failing which the bail shall be liable to be canceled. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 26.03.2025 NR/