2025:UHC:2920 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 36 of 2024 Kadil alias Kadir …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Deepak Petshali, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is in judicial custody since 21.05.2021 in connection with FIR No. 0119 of 2021, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 IPC, and Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. The Special Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2021 is pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar. It is stated that 12 out of 15 witnesses have already been examined. 2. As per the State, the victim, a girl aged about 14 years, used to visit the applicant’s house for Urdu tuition. It is alleged that the applicant lured her and committed repeated sexual assault upon her, 1 2025:UHC:2920 threatening her to remain silent. The matter came to light when the victim complained of abdominal pain and was found to be pregnant. The FIR was lodged by her uncle on 24.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR lacks specific dates and times, and has not been lodged by the victim herself. He cast doubt on the claim that the victim was being tutored by the applicant’s father, who is allegedly illiterate. 4. It is contended that the applicant was employed as a labourer in Tehri Garhwal during the relevant period and visited his home only occasionally. The possibility of any such offence occurring within a crowded joint family setup is emphatically denied. 5. The authenticity of the documents relied upon to determine the victim’s age, particularly the school transfer certificate, has been questioned, alleging overwriting and a lack of corroborating documents such as a birth certificate. Learned counsel relied on the cross-examination of the school principal (PW4) and the testimony of the medical witness (PW3), who opined that no definite conclusion could be drawn regarding sexual assault and no injury marks were found. 6. While not disputing the DNA match, learned counsel raised apprehensions about the integrity and reliability of the testing process. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, and is unlikely to abscond or tamper with the evidence. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has 2 2025:UHC:2920 also been invoked. 7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has opposed the application, submitting that the trial is at an advanced stage, with 12 of 15 witnesses already examined. 8. It is submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution’s case in her chief examination and that no material contradictions have yet emerged. The State argues that the applicant’s release at this stage may jeopardize the remaining proceedings, particularly by influencing or intimidating vulnerable witnesses, given the nature of the offence. 9. The State further relies upon the DNA report, which confirms the applicant’s paternity. It is submitted that the fetus, extracted from the victim, along with blood samples of the applicant and the victim, were collected under proper supervision and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The DNA match forms the scientific backbone of the State’s case. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious nature. The age of the victim, for purposes of POCSO, is prima facie under 18 years. The challenge to the determination of age is an issue to be adjudicated at trial and does not prima facie displace the application of the POCSO Act. 12. The DNA report linking the applicant to the fetus is a key piece of forensic evidence and cannot be brushed aside at the stage of considering bail. In Neeru 3 2025:UHC:2920 Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the relevance of the accused’s conduct and the nature of evidence in sexual offence cases involving minors. 13. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 2021, reiterated that where the DNA test confirms the paternity of the foetus, it forms strong prima facie evidence against the accused and is a weighty consideration for rejecting bail in sexual offence cases involving minors. The Court held that scientific evidence, such as DNA reports, when corroborated by the statements of the victim and other supporting material, must not be lightly disregarded at the bail stage. 14. In the present matter, the State’s case is supported by substantial medical, testimonial, and forensic material. The trial is at an advanced stage, and the defence has had the opportunity to cross-examine crucial witnesses. The doubts expressed regarding age determination and the DNA report are matters for final adjudication and do not eclipse the prima facie case. 15. In view of the totality of the circumstances, the serious nature of the allegations, the stage of the trial, and the nature of the material on record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for the grant of bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 17. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of deciding on the 4 2025:UHC:2920 present bail application. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a reflection on the merits of the case. The learned trial court shall consider the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 09.04.2025 SB 5 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD 9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.23 12:24:00 +05'30'