HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 177 of 2025 Jugraj Singh Alias Gopi ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. assisted by Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.0271 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station- Khatima, District- Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 30.07.2024,, at 9:00 in the morning, the victim left her house, but she did not return. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the relevant documents have already been filed, therefore, there is no need to file any objection. In fact, the statements of the 2 victim and the informant recorded during trial have been filed by the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the victim both were in relationship; the victim has not supported the case during trial but she has not been declared hostile. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during trial, although, according to the victim, she was known to the applicant. 7. 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. 8. According to the FIR, the victim is 18 years of age and this is so the victim has stated during trial. According to her, she was known to the applicant for 4-5 years prior to giving her statement in the court. They left their respective homes and stayed together in a hotel, where the applicant established physical relations with her. 3 9. Admittedly, the victim never raised any alarm. She was known to the applicant. They both left together from their respective homes. 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) 12.02.2025 Ravi Bisht