HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1486 of 2024 Jagmohan Chand …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. K.S. Rautela and Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.05 of 2024, dated 05.07.2024, under Sections 351(2), 74 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“the Act”) (Bail Rejection under Sections 351(2), 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7/8 of the Act), Police Station Jhulaghat, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 02.07.2024 at 02:00 PM the applicant molested the victim, a handicapped girl, who was all alone at that time. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire case is false; the applicant was at a distance of 30 Kms from the place of incident at the relevant time and this is captured in CCTV footages. It is argued that when these facts were brought to the notice of Investigating Officer and it was put to the victim, then she changed her statement in the court and said that the incident took place at 06:00 PM. It is argued that the FIR is delayed; the FIR simply says that it is a case of molestation subsequently, the statements were improvised in the court. It is argued that it is a case fit for bail. 5. Learned State counsel admits that according to the FIR, the incident took place at 02:00 PM, but according to her it was 02:00 PM in the evening and the other attending witnesses have stated that it was after 03:30 PM. 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. 3 7. Admittedly, according to the FIR, the incident took placed at 02:00 PM in the evening. Generally, 02:00 PM is not addressed for evening, it is in the afternoon. According to the brother of the victim, he left for tuition at 03:30 PM and when he returned, the incident took place in between. Does it mean that he returned after 06:00 PM? The family members of the victim told that when they returned from their work, they found that the incident had happened. Does it mean that they returned after 06:00 PM? The FIR is of course lodged after three days. Delay per se is not a ground. The delay has less importance in such cases. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.01.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A 7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.01.06 13:31:26 +05'30'