2025:UHC:10375 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1961 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande along with Mr. Devender Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the complainant/victim. 4. Applicant–Javed, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 211 of 2025, under Sections 69 of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Initially, an F.I.R. was lodged on 25.08.2025 alleging therein that the applicant was in a relationship with the complainant/victim for the last six months and during this period he allegedly established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that on 28.07.2025, the applicant took the complainant/victim to his house and had physical relations with her, and on several occasions thereafter. It is alleged that when the complainant/victim asked the applicant to marry her, he refused, leading to the registration of the present case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He contends that there is no medical or scientific evidence to support the prosecution case; that the complainant/victim initially refused to undergo medical examination, 2025:UHC:10375 and no timely MLC was conducted. Even the subsequent medical examination did not reveal any external or internal injury suggestive of forcible sexual assault. 8. It is further submitted that both the applicant and the complainant are 25 years of age and had been in a friendly relationship. Even if the allegation of physical relations is presumed, the same were consensual in nature. Learned counsel submits that WhatsApp chats between the parties indicate cordial relations and negate the allegation of inducement on a false promise of marriage. The applicant has been incarcerated since 25.08.2025, is a young man of 25 years, and prolonged detention would adversely affect his future. The bail application of the applicant was earlier rejected by the court below vide order dated 25.09.2025. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial in the near future, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant would vehemently oppose the bail application on the ground of seriousness of the allegations. However, they do not dispute the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.08.2025, and that his bail application was rejected by the learned court below on 25.09.2025. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of forcible sexual assault; that,, both the applicant and the complainant are majors and were admittedly in a relationship; that the complainant’s refusal to undergo prompt medical examination casts doubt on the prosecution version; and that the 2025:UHC:10375 material on record reflects consensual intimacy between the parties. The applicant is in custody since 25.08.2025. In these circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, a case for grant of bail is made out. 11. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 20.11.2025 Mamta