HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1110 of 2024 Anjali …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the applicant appeared through video conferencing. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.1233 of 2023, dated 21.12.2023, under Sections 107, 120-B, 342, 366-A, 368, 376(3), 506 IPC and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 and 3(a) r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Manglore, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 02.12.2023, the victim, a young girl of 14 years was taken in her house by the applicant. They both were friends. Thereafter, the co- accused raped the victim and also made a video. The victim was threatened by the applicant and the co- 2 accused that in case, she reveals it to any, they will make the video viral. FIR records that again on 28.12.2023, the applicant called the victim, but the victim denied for it. Thereafter, the video was made viral. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim had earlier levelled the allegations against various persons namely, Intezar, Naved, Savez and others, but she has not supported the prosecution case qua those persons. It is submitted that the statement of the victim is wavering. On the one hand, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, she would submit that the video was made viral by the co-accused, but in the court, she has not made such statement. The applicant is a young girl. She is in custody for more than one year now. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant, who took the victim in her house and locked her inside the room, where the co-accused raped the victim. She would submit that according to the victim, the applicant had made the video, which was subsequently made viral. 3 6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case. 7. This Court has perused the statement of the victim recorded during trial. She has narrated the story, as to what had happened to her. According to her, it is the applicant, who took her in her room, gave her a chocolate, after having chocolate, according to the victim, she did not realize as to what had happened to her. The applicant and the co-accused entered there. Thereafter, the applicant locked the door from the outside. The victim was raped. Her video was made and subsequently, it was made public. The details of the video have also been placed by the State on the record. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail and the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 9. The bail application is rejected. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Sanjay