2025:UHC:3132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2370 of 2024 Lakshaman Singh …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Mukul Singh Dangi, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been moved by the applicant, Lakshman Singh, seeking regular bail in connection with Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2024, Police Station Lambgaon, District Tehri Garhwal. The applicant is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(1)/6, 13/14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.03.2024. 2. The case against the applicant is that he sexually assaulted a minor girl aged about 17 years, recorded obscene videos of her, and subsequently used those videos to intimidate her and her family. The FIR 1 2025:UHC:3132 was lodged by the victim’s father on 13.02.2024 after allegedly coming to know of the incident, though the date of the occurrence is stated by the victim to be 17– 18 July 2023. 3. Heard learned Counsels of the Parties and perused the records. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that there is an unexplained delay of almost seven months in lodging the FIR, which renders the prosecution version doubtful. It is further contended that the victim and the applicant were in a consensual relationship for nearly three years, which has been admitted by the victim in her deposition as PW-3. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the circulation of the obscene photos and videos. 5. It is further submitted that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen with no previous criminal antecedents, and he has been falsely implicated. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the bail application, asserting that the material collected during investigation reveals the applicant’s active involvement. The victim, in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, has clearly alleged that the applicant entered her house at night, assaulted her physically, and recorded obscene material without her consent. These recordings were later used to coerce her into sexual submission. It is submitted that the statement of the victim is consistent and coherent. 2 2025:UHC:3132 7. Additionally, two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the applicant at the time of his arrest, and forensic analysis of the devices revealed the presence of incriminating material. Pen drives containing screenshots of the videos were also produced by the complainant. According to school records, the victim’s date of birth is 01.04.2007, establishing her minority beyond dispute. 8. Upon a careful analysis of the material placed before this Court, it appears that the allegations made by the victim are specific and supported by multiple pieces of corroborative evidence. The victim has given a detailed account of the incident, including how she was physically assaulted and then photographed and filmed in a compromising position. 9. Her narrative reflects not only physical abuse but also psychological manipulation, including the use of threats to her life and to the safety of her family members. The trauma allegedly suffered by the victim and the power dynamics at play explain the delay in the lodging of the FIR. In cases of sexual offences against minors, especially those involving intimidation and coercion, such delays cannot be viewed in isolation or to the detriment of the complainant. 10. The recovery of electronic devices from the possession of the applicant, his admission during custodial interrogation, and the findings in the CFSL report indicating the presence and transmission of objectionable material from one of the applicant’s devices further strengthen the case of the State. Also, the medical report of the victim also confirmed a 3 2025:UHC:3132 history of sexual abuse. At this stage, the chain of evidence as gathered appears sufficient to suggest a prima facie case. 11. This Court is conscious of the legal presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which places a burden upon the accused once a prima facie case is established. The contention raised by the applicant regarding the consensual nature of the relationship is a matter of trial and cannot be accepted as a defence at this stage in view of the clear statutory mandate, particularly where the victim is a minor. 12. In State of Rajasthan v. Bal Kishan Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that in cases involving sexual offences against minors, the safety of the victim and the larger interest of society must weigh strongly against the release of the accused on bail. ORDER Considering the gravity of the offence, the age of the victim, the consistent narrative of abuse and coercion, the recovery of digital evidence, and the pendency of trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 17.04.2025 SB 4 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b 09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9 BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.28 11:11:17 +05'30'