HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2151 of 2024 Chandra Prakash alias Chandu ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Manoj Bhatt and Mr. Sachin Veer Singh, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 281 of 2024, under Sections 323, 328, 342, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the victim was in relationship with one Neeraj from her school days, who in the month of August, 2023 established physical relations with her and made a video. Thereafter, the applicant also established physical relations with her. The FIR records that thereafter, some other persons also rape the victim. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the charge sheet has already been filed. Neeraj has already been exonerated. Co-accused Bhuwan has already been granted bail. The bail application of the applicant has only been rejected on the ground that he had booked a room 2 with the victim in a hotel. It is argued that the main allegation is against Bhuwan. Insofar as, the relationship with the applicant is concerned, the victim was consenting. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case. 6. It is the 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 bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. There are allegations against various persons. Initial allegations were against one Neeraj, who admittedly has been exonerated. Thereafter, there were allegations against the applicant and one Bhuwan that they both established physical relations with the victim. Admittedly, Bhuwan has already been granted bail. The victim is a major girl. If she visited the hotel, why she did not raise the alarm? Why she stayed in the hotel for a long as stated by one witness Sumit Jaiswal. 8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 3 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 06.01.2025 Jitendra