2025:UHC:8548 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 05 of 2025 Kadir ..…Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder. Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J. Applicant-Kadir is in judicial custody for the offence under Sections 363, 366A, 376DA, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No.105 of 2022, registered at Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. 2. Heard Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the victim was kidnapped and raped by the present applicant and co- 1 2025:UHC:8548 accused persons for 17 days, but the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. The medical report states that hymen was intact and there was no injury on the body of the alleged victim. The alleged victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as PW1 in her cross-examination. 4. Mr. Shivam Gulati, Advocate further contended that as per the statement of the alleged victim, the applicant was not involved in the said offence. Applicant is in judicial custody since 05.03.2022. He does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding. 5. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the bail application. However, he fairly conceded that victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and as per the medical report, hymen of the victim is intact and no injury was found on her body. 6. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the 2 2025:UHC:8548 personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused persons in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant – Kadir 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. ___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J. Date: 23.09.2025 JKJ/Pant 3