HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL IInd Bail Application No. 59 of 2025 Manish Kumar ........Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Ms. Manisha Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Manish Kumar is in judicial custody in FIR No. 50 of 2023, under Sections 341, 376, 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Clement Town, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2024. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 03.05.2023, the applicant offered lift to the victim and on the way he sexually assaulted the victim at about 11:45 p.m. Thereafter, the applicant pushed her in the forest and left her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire case is false; according to the FIR, the information was received at the police station on 04.05.2023 at 11:30 p.m., whereas according to the statement of the victim given before the court, she had reached the police station in the intervening night of 3/4.05.2023 between 12 – 2:30 a.m. and in the morning the police had already apprehended the applicant. It is submitted that, in fact, the FIR records that it was 2 lodged on 05.05.2023 at 09:14 a.m. It is argued that the FIR was lodged on 05.05.2025, which means that the applicant was already in the custody of police about 24 hours prior to lodging of the FIR; it doubts the prosecution case. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that in the FIR, the date “05.05.2023” has wrongly been typed and it should have been typed as “04.05.2023”. 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. Though there is a DNA examination report also, but factually, according to the FIR, after the incident, which took place in the intervening night of 3/4.05.2023, the victim first reached at some place, took assistance of one of her friends and then reached the police station. But, in her statement in the court, the victim speaks something different. According to her, after the incident, she had reached at the police station in the mid-night between 12 – 12:30 a.m. and thereafter the police apprehended the applicant. The victim has, in fact, denied recovery of articles, etc. 9. 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. 10. The bail application is allowed. 3 11. 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) 10.07.2025 Avneet/