SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/482/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Upendra Chaudhary, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 499 of 2024, under Sections 131, 64, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, on 04.01.2024, an F.I.R. was registered against the present applicant alleging that on 03.12.2024, the victim had gone to the grocery shop of the applicant but did not return. When the informant reached the shop, it was alleged that the applicant had committed rape upon the victim. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is a 75-year-old man who runs a small grocery shop situated within the premises of his residence, where he lives along with his wife. Therefore, the alleged incident, as stated, could not have taken place. It is further submitted that CCTV cameras were installed at the shop and its surroundings, and the footage was seized by the police; however, no such incident is seen in the CCTV footage. 7. Learned counsel further submits that as per the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer, which has also been filed along with the counter affidavit, it is evident that the applicant and the victim were inside the shop for only about 40 seconds from 10:38:52 to 10:39:40 and thereafter, both are seen exiting the shop. It is also pointed out that the medical examination of the victim was conducted, and in the supplementary report, the doctor has opined that no definite opinion regarding sexual intercourse can be given. 8. Learned counsel would also submit that the statements of the victim and the informant are not corroborated either by the medical evidence or by the CCTV footage. There is also a contradiction regarding the age of the victim, as the grandmother of the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), has stated that the father of the victim died in the year 2007, and since then, the victim has been living with her. 9. He would further submit that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 05.12.2024; that, though the applicant had earlier moved a bail application before the learned court below, the same was rejected on 15.05.2025. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or misusing the liberty if released on bail. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, contending that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., has supported the prosecution version. However, it is admitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 05.12.2024, and his bail application was rejected by the court below on 15.05.2025. 11. It is agreed that the CCTV footage shows the applicant and the victim together for only about 40 seconds. The medical reports and the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not fully support the prosecution’s version. In addition, there is a significant contradiction regarding the victim’s age, as mentioned by her grandmother. 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 13. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on 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.) 15.10.2025 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.10.16 17:11:07 +05'30'