HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No. 28 of 2025 Ajay Alias Jhojha ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Sazzad Ahamad and Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocates for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 242 of 2024, under Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC and Section 3(a)/4(2), 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1232 of 2024, was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.08.2024. 4. According to the FIR, on 01.04.2024, at 7:00,in the evening, when the victim, a young girl, was returning to her home, the applicant and the co-accused forcibly took her in a room, where the applicant raped her twice. The 2 applicant confined the victim whole night in a house. The next morning, the victim was traced by her father. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim, her father and other witnesses have already been examined; the applicant is in custody for more than a year; the total prosecution story in its entirety is false, whereas, according to the victim, her hands and mouth were tied; she sustained injuries; her mouth was swollen, but it is argued that there is no such injury reported in the medical report. Instead, according to the medical report, it was only a case of attempted rape and not case of raping twice the victim, as alleged in the FIR; the medical report does not support the prosecution case; the hymen of the victim was found intact; the father of the victim, who has been examined as PW2, in his examination at Para 33, has stated that on the date of incident, at 9:00-9:30, in the evening, he had met the applicant. It is argued that if it is so, then the prosecution story gets falsified because according to the prosecution, the applicant took the victim at 7:00, in the evening, and confined her with him, and he was there raping the victim. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim and her father both have supported the prosecution case. 3 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. 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. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. 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) 22.05.2025 Ravi Bisht