Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6299 (UTT)

NIRMAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/104/2025 · 2025-07-08

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.104 of 2025 Nirmal ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 1 of 2023, under Section 376 (2) (n), 354 (c), 328 and 506 IPC, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 5 (l)/6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Revenue Chowki Kanbua Kalsi, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.03.2024. 4. According to the FIR, the applicant and the victim, both were known to each other. One day, the applicant spiked the eatables, due to which the victim became unconscious and thereafter, the applicant established physical relations with her and took some photographs. Subsequently, the applicant assured the victim to marry, but he did not. FIR records that thereafter, the applicant made intimate photographs and videos viral. 2 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the relationship was consensual; the applicant did not make any photos or videos viral; in fact, he would submit that as per prosecution, there is no video as such. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that according to the statements of the witnesses, it is the applicant, who made those photographs viral. She submits that there is no video, as such. 7. The Court wanted to know as to what electronic evidence is available to even suggest that it is the applicant who made those photographs viral? Learned State counsel admits that there is no such electronic evidence. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.07.2025 Jitendra