SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:2668 BA 1st No.386 of 2026 “Aakash Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand” Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for the Applicant – Aakash Singh, who has been accused in FIR No.306 of 2025 (Chargesheet no.294 of 2025) under Sections 376, 420 and 171 of IPC and under Section 352 of BNS, at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. In the FIR, it is alleged that one Mr. Aakash Singh S/o late Satish Singh, under conspiracy, met the parents of the Complainant in the year 2021 and brought a proposal of marriage with the Complainant, impersonating himself as a SSB Corporal, and boosted his position with the forged photo that the Applicant is receiving an award from the DIG on the facebook and on his mobile. Accordingly, the Applicant took hold of the Complainant’s parents, and gained their confidence that he was a government servant in the SSB. Considering, the Applicant as a government servant, an engagement was solemnized between the Complainant (victim) and the Applicant – Aakash Singh on 07.09.2022. Taking advantage of the said engagement Applicant – Aakash Singh, started extorting money from the Complainant on one pretext or the other, and with the pretext of taking Complainant to Nainital for sightseeing, he took her in a hotel, namely, Basera and forcefully established physical relations with the Complainant. Learning the same, the parents of the Complainant tried to approach the Applicant for marriage with their daughter, but the Applicant somehow evaded with the excuse that he was not getting leave. 5. For consideration of the bail, the contentions so moved by the learned counsel for the Applicant are that, at the outset, the Applicant had been falsely implicated in the present matter and he has no criminal history or antecedents of this kind. The Applicant came into contact with the Complainant through online social app and that is how they become friends and decided to marry each other and which resulted in their engagement on 07.09.2022. But in between there arose some dispute between the Complainant and the Applicant, which resulted in falsely implicating the Applicant in the present matter. In the present matter, charge-sheet has been submitted, wherein, cognizance has been taken and there is no need of custodial interrogation as such, and thus, it is requested that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. The bail application has been opposed on behalf of the learned State Counsel refuting all the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the Applicant, it is stated that the Applicant has tarnished the reputation and mental state of the Complainant with whom he sexually exploited and extorted money with undue coercion. The Applicant impersonated himself as a SSB Corporal and to mask his impersonation and impress upon the Complainant and her parents showed them a forged photograph completely morphed on the facebook and the mobile, where he is being shown receiving an award from the DIG of the SSB. By such false impersonating himself as a corporal of the uniform, he managed to get an engagement solemnized with the Complainant and later with this false relations which was totally based on false grounds, he extorted money from the Complainant and also physically exploited her by committing physical relations and it was contended that the Applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, at this juncture, this Court is of the view that the grounds for bail are not found sufficient. Firstly that the Applicant has established physical relations with the Complainant after impersonating himself as a corporal of the SSB, he took the Complainant on the pretext of making her sightseeing of Nainital, took her in Nainital and forcefully taken advantage of her vulnerability, cohabited with her. This kind of act on behalf of the Applicant has shaken the Complainant physically and mentally and has also suffered from broken trust. If, in case the Applicant is enlarged on bail, he may pose a threat to the Complainant and further may try to apply coercive measures in subduing her and adversely affects the witnesses in the present matter. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant has not made out a case for bail. Consequently, the bail application of the Applicant – Aakash Singh S/o Satish Singh, is hereby rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 15.04.2026 Nitesh/