2026:UHC:2655 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.1681 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.336 of 2024, under Section 64(1) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. 3. The First Information Report has been lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that, in the intervening night/morning of 26.08.2024 at about 03:30 a.m., the applicant trespassed into her house by crossing the boundary wall and entered her room, which was not bolted from inside, and thereafter allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will. The F.I.R. came to be lodged promptly at about 08:21 a.m. on the same day, and the medical examination of the victim was also conducted on that very day. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and is in judicial custody since 06.09.2024. It is contended that the medical examination of the prosecutrix does not corroborate the prosecution version, inasmuch as, no dead or alive spermatozoa was detected and no external or internal injury was found on her private parts. It is further 2026:UHC:2655 submitted that the prosecution story suffers from inherent inconsistencies and material contradictions. In the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., it is stated that when her son reached the house at about 05:00 a.m., the applicant fled from the spot; however, the said son, examined as P.W.2, has categorically stated that he was not present at home on the date of the incident and was, in fact, at Delhi. This contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations. It is also submitted that, in the event of the applicant being enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty so granted and shall abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court, including furnishing reliable bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the medical evidence does not prima facie support the allegation of forcible sexual assault to the extent alleged, as neither any injury has been found on the person of the prosecutrix nor any spermatozoa has been detected. Though absence of such medical evidence is not by itself decisive, yet at the stage of bail it assumes significance when read in conjunction with other attending circumstances. The Court further finds that there exists a material contradiction between the statement of the prosecutrix and that of P.W.2, who is projected as a crucial witness, thereby casting a shadow 2026:UHC:2655 of doubt over the prosecution story at this stage. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 8. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, Vivek Bakshi 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.) 15.04.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb739 3398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9874463 51E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.15 17:25:04 +05'30'