HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 340 of 2024 Imran Alias Tota ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 317 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 506 IPC and Section ¾ of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. According to the FIR, on 18.11.2020, at 4:00 PM, the applicant enticed the victim, a young girl of 13 years of age and took her at some place, where he, after intoxicating her, raped her throughout the night. The FIR records that thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused tried to give money to the victim so that she could not report the matter. 2 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.576 of 2021, was rejected on 27.07.2021. Thereafter, the victim has been examined. 5. State was required to file objection. Today, learned State Counsel gives a statement that the entire material is on record. Therefore, no objection is required to be filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the applicant only, and co-accused was exonerated, but in her examination in court, the victim levelled the allegations of rape against the co-accused and not against the applicant. Therefore, the co-accused was also summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and when further cross examined, she again changed her statement. 7. These factual narrations are not denied by learned State Counsel. 8. It is a 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 proceeding. 3 9. In fact, according to the FIR, the rape was done by the applicant. But when the victim was examined on 24.12.2021, she levelled allegations of rape against the co- accused. Though, she further denied those allegations. The statements of the victim are much wavering. 10. 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. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 19.02.2025 Ravi Bisht