2025:UHC:10821 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 / 1 7 6 6 / 2 0 2 5 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Jai Singh is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 01 of 2024, registered at Police Station Revenue Circle Khatsyun, District Pauri Garhwal, for offences under Sections 376, 307, 392, and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 66(e) of the I.T. Act, 2000. He is also facing Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2024 for offences under Sections 376, 392, and 506 of the I.P.C. The applicant has, therefore, sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged by the informant on 25.03.2025 alleging that the applicant pushed her, committed rape, snatched her gold chain (mangal-sutra), made her video and threatened her. It is further alleged that the applicant attempted to strangulate the informant using her chunni (dupatta). 6. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to village enmity. It is argued that the medical examination of the informant does not support the allegations of rape or assault, as no injury was found on any part of her body. The F.S.L. report also does not support the prosecution version. The Doctor who examined the informant did not give any opinion suggestive of rape. 7. He would further submit that no video of 2025:UHC:10821 any kind was recovered from the applicant’s mobile phone. It is further submitted that although the informant alleged that the applicant strangulated her with her dupatta, no corresponding injuries were found, making her version improbable; that, the applicant has no previous criminal history and is in judicial custody since 31.03.2024; that, his earlier bail applications were rejected by the court below vide orders dated 26.04.2024 and 14.08.2025. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Pauri Garhwal, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. Hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application on the ground of the seriousness of allegations. However, he fairly admits that the medical examination does not indicate rape or assault and that no injuries were found on the informant. He also confirms that the applicant has been in custody since 31.03.2024 and that his earlier bail applications were rejected. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the medical evidence does not support the allegations of rape or assault and no video was recovered from the applicant’s possession, accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for the grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number upon 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.) 04.12.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10821