2026:UHC:3222 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1349/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 208 of 2024, under Sections 376, 363, 366, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.06.2024 by the mother of the victim alleging that on the intervening night of 22.06.2024 at about 12:00 midnight, four persons, including the present applicant, forcibly entered the house of the complainant and attempted to kidnap her daughter by gagging her mouth. It is further alleged that the accused persons touched the private parts of the victim, and upon her resistance and raising alarm, one of the accused assaulted her on the head, causing injuries. It has also been alleged that approximately three months prior to the said incident, the applicant had kidnapped the complainant’s minor daughter, aged about 17 years, and committed rape upon her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated 2026:UHC:3222 due to ulterior motives; that, the complainant was earlier involved in a case under the NDPS Act and was incarcerated, and this Court granted her bail vide order dated 08.05.2024; that, after being released from jail, the complainant lodged the present F.I.R. out of personal vendetta, as the applicant had assisted the police in the arrest of the complainant in the said NDPS case. 6. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim and the complainant as the victim, in her statement before the trial court, has stated that the alleged incident occurred on 16.04.2024 in a field near Chaiti Chauraha, whereas the complainant has stated that the incident took place on 22.06.2024 at her residence; that, such glaring inconsistencies render the prosecution story doubtful. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the victim refused to undergo medical examination and, therefore, no medical evidence has been collected to substantiate the allegations; that, the victim is a major, aged about 22 years, and thus the provisions of the POCSO Act are not attracted; that, the co-accused persons, namely Harpal Singh and Jasvinder Singh, have been exonerated during investigation and not charge- sheeted. It is also submitted that with regard to the earlier allegation of rape concerning the complainant’s younger daughter, the police has already submitted a final report exonerating the applicant. 8. It is further argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 23.07.2024 and that the bail application of the applicant was earlier rejected by the court below vide order dated 06.05.2025. It is submitted that the complainant as well as the victim 2026:UHC:3222 have already been examined before the trial court and, therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence; that, the applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no possibility of his absconding; that, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 9. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application on the ground of seriousness of the allegations; however, he does not dispute that the complainant and the victim have already been examined before the trial court. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the period of incarceration, the contradictions in the statements of material witnesses, the fact that the complainant and the victim have already been examined, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant 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.) 28.04.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.29 18:51:06 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3222