2025:UHC:4643 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1339 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.0299 of 2022, under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 323, 376-A, 376-B, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Bail Rejection under Section 5 ¼M½ ¼<½/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 323, 376-AB, 504 & 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant crime; has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 13.12.2022. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that there are major contradictions in the statements of the alleged victim and the complainant; that, the complainant has narrated in the F.I.R. that the alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 18/19.07.2022 and she took the victim for medical examination on 19.07.2022, but neither F.I.R. was lodged nor medical of the victim was conducted; that, she went to Women Helpline on 30.09.2022 and the victim has narrated the story as mentioned in the complaint before the Women Helpline; but, surprisingly, still no F.I.R. was lodged on that day also and, ultimately, the F.I.R. 2025:UHC:4643 came to be lodged on 01.12.2022, which is after almost four and a half months of the alleged incident; that, in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the applicant inserted his finger in her vagina and, as such, this is not a case of penetrative assault; that, the applicant as well as the complainant, who are husband & wife, were not having the cordial relations with each other, due to which, she roped the applicant in a false case; that, since the victim has been examined, there is no chance of applicant victimizing the complainant or the victim or his tampering with the evidence. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the same and will furnish the bail surety as per the satisfaction of this Court. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 6. The bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant, namely, Jitendra Singh be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 06.06.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2C EA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.06.06 17:20:37 +05'30'