2026:UHC:3707 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 / 2 6 9 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Mukul Dangi, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. and Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present bail application has been filed seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 91 of 2024 (Special Sessions Trial No.349 of 2024), registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 I.P.C. and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. This is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed for non-prousection on 29.04.2025. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially a missing report was lodged by the father of the victim alleging therein that his minor daughter had been missing since the night of 16.02.2024. He would further submit that during the course of investigation, the victim was recovered on 21.02.2024 from the company of the present applicant from District Haridwar. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the present applicant, upon which cognizance was taken by the learned trial court and summons were issued. Subsequently, charges were framed and 2026:UHC:3707 the trial commenced. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the statements of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein she stated that she had known the applicant for about one month prior to the alleged incident. She further stated that on the intervening night of 16/17.02.2024, when she had come outside her house between 12:00 A.M. and 1:00 A.M. for drinking water from the water tank, the applicant asked her to accompany him, whereafter both of them went to Haridwar. It is further submitted that the victim nowhere stated that any force or coercion was used upon her while leaving the house. She further stated that she remained with the applicant at different places till her recovery on 21.02.2024 from Haridwar. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim specifically stated that she herself had contacted the applicant through her grandmother’s mobile phone. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the victim does not indicate any external or internal injury suggestive of forcible sexual assault; that, the material available on record prima facie reflects that the applicant and the victim were acquainted with each other and were in a relationship and, therefore, the allegations, if taken at their face value, indicate a consensual relationship. 9. He would further submit that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, most of whom are interested witnesses, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution 2026:UHC:3707 story. Learned legal aid counsel for the applicant would further submit that there is no conclusive proof regarding the exact age of the victim; that, the prosecution has relied upon a school certificate showing the date of birth of the victim as 14.03.2009, whereas as per the Aadhaar Card, the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 20.06.2008; that, no ossification test or any other scientific age determination test was conducted during investigation; that, the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and stayed with him without any force, threat, coercion or undue influence. 10. He would further submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.02.2024 and he has no previous criminal history; that, the statements of the victim and the complainant have already been recorded and, therefore, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail; that, the trial is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application on the ground that as per the school certificate relied upon by the prosecution, the victim was aged about 14 years, 11 months and 2 days at the time of the alleged incident. However, he fairly admitted that the statements of the victim and the complainant have already been recorded and that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.02.2024. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:3707 parties, perused the material available on record, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the absence of any criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant, Pankaj, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 14.05.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.15 17:35:55 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3707