2025:UHC:10827 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1572 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap amd Ms. Meenu Kashyap, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.179 of 2025, under Section 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 64 of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. As per the contents of the First Information Report, the applicant, who is serving as a Home Guard, became acquainted with the complainant and, at the initial stage, extended financial and other assistance to support her family. Subsequently, the applicant developed intimacy with the complainant and established physical relations. It is further alleged that, in the year 2023, he coerced the complainant into prostitution and misappropriated the earnings derived therefrom. The F.I.R. also states that the applicant arranged the complainant’s marriage with a person residing at Milak after accepting a sum of ₹60,000/- from him, and directed her to return after ten days. Thereafter, when the complainant came back, on 05.04.2025, the applicant allegedly visited her rented accommodation, assaulted her after disrobing, and 2025:UHC:10827 established physical relations against her will. It is further alleged that the complainant managed to flee from the spot and apprehends that the applicant may cause harm to her life. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2025. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court to the statement of the Doctor recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the Medical Officer has recorded that the victim refused to undergo both internal and external medical examination. On this premise, it is submitted that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out, as no medical corroboration is available. It is also argued that, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, the maximum punishment under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 is seven years and, except the offence under Section 64 B.N.S., all other offences are triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, and his continued incarceration has caused severe hardship to his dependents, who are now on the verge of destitution. 5. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of 2025:UHC:10827 the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, namely, Omprakash be released on bail, on executing personal bond by each one of them and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 05.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446 351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.12.05 17:25:31 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10827