2025:UHC:11040 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 1 1 t h DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2 4 0 1 of 2 0 2 5 Karan …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder. Hon ’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J. The applicant – Karan is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 87, 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. 2 . Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 3 . Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, Advocate, has contended that the allegations of the First Information Report are false. Applicant, an innocent person, has been falsely implicated in the present matter. This fact is also supported by the statements of the alleged victim (PW1), 1 2025:UHC:11040 aged about 18 years. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. He has no criminal antecedents, and, he is in custody since 07.05.2025. 4 . Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application orally. However, she conceded that the victim (PW1) did not support the case of the prosecution. 5 . Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 6 . Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7 . The Bail Application is allowed. 2 2025:UHC:11040 8 . Let the applicant-Karan 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. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Dt: 11.12.2025 Shiv/ 3