Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8960 (UTT)

GAJENDRA ALIAS GANESH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1304/2024 · 2025-04-02

Ashish Naithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:2484 BA 1st No.1304 of 2024 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Gajendra @ Ganesh, S/o Dharmveer, resident of Durga Colony, Shukla Farm, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant is presently in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.710 of 2023, registered at Police Station Rudarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 363, 376 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act. He has sought his release on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He further submits that applicant has never made any physical relations with the victim, and the victim has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2023. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application of the applicant on the ground that the applicant had raped the minor girl, and he has made physical relations with the victim, due to which, the victim got pregnant. He further states that the applicant made physical relations with the minor girl on regular basis. The statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC, the victim had stated that the applicant had raped her, and due to which she got pregnant. According to the medical documents, the victim was five month pregnant. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the applicant had raped minor girl, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J) 02.04.2025 Nitesh/