2025:UHC:2271 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 26th March, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1366 of 2024 Rajeev Pandey alias Shahrukh Beig …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present Bail Application has been moved by the applicant-Rajeev Pandey alias Shahrukh Beig, aged about 33 years (S/o Sherjaha Beig, R/o Kanwali Gaon, Basant Vihar, Dehradun). The applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 210 of 2021, registered at Police Station Basant Vihar, Dehradun District Dehradun, under Sections 376, 419 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). 2. Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the record. 3. The FIR was lodged on 26.10.2023 by the complainant, alleging that her minor daughter, aged about 13 years, was taken away by the co-victim under the pretext of providing some money. It has been alleged that 2025:UHC:2271 2 both the minor victims went to the house of the applicant, where the applicant, Shahruk Beig, allegedly committed rape upon the complainant’s daughter while the co-victim restrained her. 4. The FIR further states that the crime came to light when the victims disclosed the incident to their family. On the basis of the said allegations, the applicant was arrested and subsequently charge-sheeted under the aforementioned provisions of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been in custody since 26.10.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the allegations levelled against him are not supported by the medical evidence. It has been contended that the medical examination of the victim does not reveal any signs of sexual assault, as the hymen of the victim was found intact and no external or internal injuries were noted on her private parts. 6. Furthermore, there is a considerable delay of 10 to 15 days in lodging the FIR, and no satisfactory explanation has been provided by the State in this regard. 7. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the victim's statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. contain material contradictions when compared with her deposition before the trial court, raising doubts about the State's case. 8. The applicant has been in custody for more than three years, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. It has also been submitted that the applicant has no prior criminal record, is a 2025:UHC:2271 3 permanent resident, and undertakes not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. On these grounds, bail has been sought. 9. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and that the victim has specifically named and identified the applicant in her statement before the trial court. 10. It has been submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR was due to the victim’s trauma and fear, which is not uncommon in cases of this nature. The State has further contended that the trial is still ongoing and that there is a possibility that the applicant may misuse his liberty to tamper with evidence or intimidate the victim. The learned counsel for the State has, therefore, prayed for rejection of the bail application. 11. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties and perusal of the records, certain facts emerge which require due consideration. The medical examination of the victim does not conclusively establish the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault, as the hymen was found intact and no injuries were observed, which casts a doubt upon the State's version of the incident. 12. The right of an accused to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and the applicant has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration without the certainty of an early conclusion of the trial. The State has not placed any material on record to substantiate the claim that the applicant would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. 2025:UHC:2271 4 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the medical report, the contradictions in the victim's statements, and the prolonged detention of the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 15. The applicant, Shahruk Beig, is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2021 upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the conditions that he shall not tamper with the evidence or try to influence any witness in any manner; shall not contact the victim or her family directly or indirectly; shall cooperate in the trial proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments; shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission; and shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed, failing which the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 26.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa0 8b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0 A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.03.27 15:23:54 +05'30'