HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.332 of 2024 Shoaib ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 259 of 2023, under Section 376 (2), 384, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2024. 4. According to the FIR, the applicant once under intoxication established physical relations with the informant; he took the photos and videos also; thereafter, the applicant started threatening the informant and blackmailing her; he established physical relations with her on multiple occasions; he also demanded money; he intervened in the religious 2 affairs of the informant and also sexually assaulted her daughter. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR is delayed. Based on the same FIR, one charge sheet was submitted under Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) before the Special Court, in which the applicant has already been granted bail, but in the instant matter, his bail application has been rejected. He would submit that there is no video taken into custody by the police. The applicant is in custody for a long. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has already been examined in the court. She has supported the prosecution case. She admits that based on the same FIR, under the Act, the applicant has already been granted bail. 7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. 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) 21.03.2025 Jitendra