2025:UHC:7188 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/843/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, learned counsel for the applicant through Legal Aid. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been moved through the Legal Aid Counsel who has been authorized by the Uttarakhand State Legal Service Authority to prefer the instant bail application on behalf of the applicant. 4. Present applicant Basant Kumar Chamoli, S/o Om Prakash Chamoli is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 17.01.2024, bearing FIR No. 25 of 2024, registered at P.S. Raipur District Dehradun wherein the present applicant has been implicated and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376, 504 and 506 IPC read with Section 5(l)/(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act. 5. This is a very unfortunate case in which the allegation of commission of rape with his own daughter has been alleged by the complainant, wife of the applicant. The FIR was lodged and registered on 17.01.2024 at P.S. Raipur District Dehradun by the wife of the applicant, namely, Guddi Devi implicating present applicant with a serious allegation of commission of rape with his minor daughter. In this FIR, subsequently, charge sheet was filed on 10.03.2024 and thereafter charges were framed and the trial has been commenced. The present applicant was arrested in this offence on 17.01.2024 2025:UHC:7188 and is in jail. Since the instant bail application has been moved through Legal Aid Counsel and to examine the seriousness of the allegations that too against the father with regard to commission of rape with his minor daughter, on the previous date, i.e, 21.07.2025, the concerned Jail Superintendent was directed to appear through V.C. along with the applicant. In compliance thereof on 23.07.2025, the Jail Superintendent appears through V.C. along with the applicant and this Court interact with the applicant who apprised this Court that his statements were never been recorded during entire investigation by the concerned investigating officer. In order to verify this, the concerned I.O. Ms. HemlataKuniyal was also asked to join the proceedings through V.C. and in compliance thereof she also joined and apprised this Court that the statement of the applicant was recorded during investigation. On this, the concerned I.O. was directed to file her personal affidavit and learned Legal Aid Counsel was also directed to file supplementary affidavit. In compliance to the order dated 23.07.2025, the concerned I.O. filed her personal affidavit on 05.08.2025 and in para 4 she has stated that deponent being investigating officer recorded the statement of the accused/applicant and thereafter charge sheet was filed on 10.03.2024 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC read with Section 5(l)(n)/6 of the POCSO Act. 6. The statement recorded under Section 161 CR.P.C. is annexed as Annexure 1 and 2 to the personal affidavit of the I.O. concerned. Annexure 1 to the personal affidavit is the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but there is no reference of the 2025:UHC:7188 date when this statement was recorded. On perusal of this statement it reveals that even not a single question was put by the I.O. to the applicant and the statement appears to be a confessional statement to some extent. It appears that in this particular case the I.O. conducted the investigation in a very casual manner and she was not bothered to examine the seriousness of the allegation that too against the father. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the applicant and on perusal of this affidavit it reveals that if in this affidavit the applicant given such justification then the question is why he has not stated before the I.O. Though, in para 23 it is categorically stated that the investigation was concluded in a very cursory manner and the applicant’s version was never been heard or taken by the I.O. Apart from this, even the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution and there is no injury mark on the body of the deceased. 6. It is not proper for this Court to examine all these aspects particularly the manner in which the investigation was carried out, since, it will affect the trial. 7. Mr. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that on the charge sheet the trial court took cognizance and the trial has been commenced and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2024. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the investigation in this case though was conducted in a very cursory manner but further taking into consideration that the applicant is languishing in jail since last more than one and half year , therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 2025:UHC:7188 9. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Basant Kumar Chamoli be released on bail on his executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to this condition that after being released on bail he will furnish appropriate sureties within a week to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the proceedings of trial court on each and every date and the trial court is also simultaneously directed to proceed with the trial strictly on its own merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.08.2025 Parul