HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 725 of 2025 Sukram Pal ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Siddharth Tomar, Ms. Swaleha Hussain and Ms. Geeta Sajwan, Advocates for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Special Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2022, arising out of FIR No.405 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366A, 506, 342, 370 IPC and Section 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the prosecution case, the victim, a young girl, was missing from her house on 12.10.2020. Despite report having been lodged, she could not be traced. Initially, the matter was closed by filing of the final report. Subsequently, the victim was recovered by Saharanpur Police and the information was sent to the 2 Vikasnagar Police Station. Thereafter, orders for further investigation was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence; the victim has been changing her statement on multiple occasions; there has been tampering in the age certificate of the victim. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that as per the statements of the victim, her father and her mother, they have supported the prosecution case; the victim has been examined twice and both the times, she has supported the prosecution case. 6. The victim has stated that on the date of incident, it is the co-accused, Shashi, who, by misconception and putting a handkerchief on her mouth, took her in a car. In the car, the applicant was also there. The victim was taken to Saharanpur, where she was made to work in a house. She was brutalized also. Other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. 7. Having considered, this Court does not see any ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 3 8. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.08.2025 Ravi Bisht