No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2439 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The applicant – Deepak, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 452 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376(2)(n), 376(d), 384 and 506 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act, registered at P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, FIR was lodged by the victim before Police Station – Kotwali Haridwar on 30.05.2024, wherein, she has alleged that the victim developed friendship with Manish (co-accused) through social media platform. Thereafter, when she came to visit her aunt at Dehradun, Manish called her and she went to the house of Manish. They went to a guest house, where, Manish committed rape upon her and also videographed the same. After doing this act, Manish threatened her that if she discloses this incident to others, then he would make this video viral. Thereafter also, they were in constant touch with each other and Manish asked her to come to Dehradun and threatened her that if she refuses to come to Dehradun, then, he will make her video viral. Then, she again came to Dehradun on 24.05.2024 where Manish and Deepak were waiting outside the Railway Station and they took her through a bus to Modi Bhawan near Railway Station, Haridwar and after reaching there, both of them repeatedly raped her and made videography of her, the whole night. Thereafter, they left her outside the hotel in the morning. Subsequently, she lodged this FIR on 30.05.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as this is a case of consensual relationship and the applicant as well as the victim, both are major; that in the medical examination of the victim, no sign of any external or internal injury was found, which shows that there was no rape committed on the victim. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1, victim and that of PW-2, brother-in-law (Jija). In her statement, the victim has reiterated the statement which she has narrated in the complaint while the statement of PW-2 would reveal that he received the obscene video of the victim in her mobile on 07.04.2024, whereas, as per the complaint, the first incident of the rape was committed on 24.04.2024 by co- accused Manish. Thus, the statements of PW-2 are suspicious. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the first incident of rape, which the victim mentioned is of 24.04.2024 by the co- accused Manish, but, no complaint or FIR was lodged after that incident. It goes to prove that the act was not a rape, but a consensual act, and, the complaint was lodged only on 30.05.2024 i.e. after five days of the alleged second incident. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the mobile phone, which was recovered from the applicants, contained obscene videos of the victim and the accused. 8. After going through the complaint, statement of the victim recorded as PW-1 and also after perusing the medical report, it appears that there is a doubt, whether the sexual act was consensual or it was an act of rape. Furthermore, the first incident of rape, which the victim mentioned, is of 24.04.2024 by the co-accused Manish, but, no complaint or FIR was lodged after that incident and the same was lodged on 30.05.2025 i.e. after five days of the alleged second incident. Presuming that the alleged incident happened on 24.04.2024, then, why the victim again came to Dehradun on her own and thereafter went with the accused to Haridwar on 24.05.2024 i.e. after a month, is a question, which raises a doubt about the whole prosecution story. Further, as per the prosecution story, the accused have left the victim in front of the hotel in the morning of 25.05.2024. What prevented the victim from lodging her complaint on the same day, as the FIR was lodged after a delay of five days i.e. on 30.05.2024. These and many more questions would require deliberation and the same would ultimately be decided during trial. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the complaint, statement of the victim recorded as PW-1 and also the medical report, and, also considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.06.2024, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 11. 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. (Alok Mahra J.) 22.08.2025 Ujjwal