2026:UHC:2798 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.2014 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Pal, 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./Case Crime No.285 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. As per the prosecution version, a missing report was lodged by the father of the victim alleging that his minor daughter had gone missing. During investigation, the victim subsequently returned to her home and her statements were recorded by the investigating agency. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and is not having any criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 20.10.2024 and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. It is also pointed out that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim stated that she knew the applicant and had gone with him of her own volition, whereas in her statement as PW-1 before the Court she has completely resiled and denied the prosecution version, rendering the 2026:UHC:2798 evidence materially contradictory. It is argued that such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case and require detailed appreciation at trial. The allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie disclose commission of any grave offence warranting continued incarceration, particularly when the case rests on disputed and self-contradictory statements. The applicant is therefore entitled to bail. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, it appears that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of a missing report given by the father of the victim, alleging that his minor daughter had gone missing. At this stage, the prosecution case thus rests primarily on statements which are not consistent and require detailed examination during trial. The contradictions between the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony before the Court raise issues of credibility, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage of bail. The applicant is stated to be in judicial custody since 20.10.2024 and there is no material to indicate any likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. He is stated to have no criminal antecedents. The trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, and prolonged incarceration without a prima facie finding of guilt would not be justified. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, the contradictory statements of the prosecutrix, the period of custody already undergone, and the absence of apprehension regarding flight risk or 2026:UHC:2798 tampering with evidence, without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail at this stage. The bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant-Vikas Prasad 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.) 18.04.2026 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=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb 7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744 6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.04.18 17:16:22 +05'30'