2025:UHC:9236 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/966/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Gopal Singh Dogra, who is in judicial custody in connection with Special Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2024 for offences punishable under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Sections 3(w)(i)(ii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Challani Revenue Police Area, Timila, District Almora has sought release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, the victim lodged an F.I.R. alleging that on 28.06.2024, at around 6:30 hours, while returning home from a shop, the applicant allegedly committed sexual assault upon her and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. It is submitted that the victim was medically examined on 29.06.2024 at 9:30 a.m., and the medical report indicated no external or internal injuries. The doctor did not provide any opinion regarding sexual intercourse or rape; that, vaginal swab samples were collected for 2025:UHC:9236 detection of spermatozoa, and the supplementary report dated 08.07.2024 noted no presence of spermatozoa; that, the blood samples of the victim and the applicant, along with their belongings, were sent for chemical examination at the FSL, which returned negative results regarding the alleged sexual assault. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that no evidence has been found to substantiate the charges under the SC/ST Act, and it appears that the charges under this Act were made solely because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste. It is further submitted that in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim mentioned informing her “didi” (neighbour) about the incident. However, when examined as PW6, the said “didi” did not support the same. The conduct of the victim appears improbable, as no hue and cry was raised despite the alleged incident occurring near a busy motor road. 8. He would further submit that the victim stated in her statements that a ripped condom and some candy wrappers were found at the scene. However, during cross- examination, she admitted that no condom or her underwear was recovered when the Patwari took her to the spot, casting doubt on the prosecution story. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the prosecution case appears highly doubtful, suggesting the possibility that the victim was tutored to falsely implicate the applicant due to a personal grudge. The applicant, a young man aged about 25 years, has been in custody since 02.07.2024; that, the applicant moved his bail application, which was rejected by the court concerned in a cursory manner vide order dated 23.07.2024. It is further submitted that since all witnesses have 2025:UHC:9236 already been examined, there is no likelihood that the applicant tampering with evidence or misusing liberty if released on bail. 10. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application, citing the serious nature of allegations. However, it is admitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.07.2024 and the bail application of the applicant was rejected on 23.07.2024 by the court below. 11. It is contended that the FSL report indicates no DNA match between the victim and the applicant. Furthermore, the medical examination conducted by the Doctor revealed that the victim did not sustain any external or internal injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the prosecution’s case, the applicant allegedly committed a forceful sexual assault. However, despite the alleged incident occurring in a non-isolated area near a busy motor road, the victim did not raise any hue and cry, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 13. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.10.2025 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.10.16 17:13:33 +05'30'