2026:UHC:3716 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 BA1 / 1 6 1 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Najim Ali, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No.181 of 2025, registered under Sections 70(1), 351(3) of the B.N.S., Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3(1), 5 of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion and Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2018, at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that initially a missing report was lodged on 03.05.2025 by the father of the victim alleging therein that his 20-year-old daughter had been missing since 01.05.2025; that, during the course of investigation, the victim was recovered on 08.05.2025 from near Railway Station, Haridwar, from the company of co-accused Tanveer. Thereafter, her statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. was recorded, wherein she stated that she had gone 2026:UHC:3716 with co-accused Tanveer and stayed at a hotel and that on 02.05.2025 the present applicant allegedly committed rape upon her. It is further submitted that in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim additionally alleged that the applicant had asked her to convert her religion. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the medical examination of the victim was conducted and no external injury was found on her person; that, as per the supplementary medical report, no dead or alive spermatozoa were detected on microscopic examination of the slides; that, during trial the victim was examined as PW-1 and though in her examination-in-chief she initially supported the prosecution case as well as her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., however, during the course of her cross-examination she denied the entire occurrence; that, subsequently, pursuant to the order of the trial court, the victim was re-examined on 16.04.2026, wherein she categorically stated that no such incident had ever taken place and that she did not know why her father had lodged the F.I.R. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and neither committed rape upon the victim nor compelled her to convert her religion. He would submit that the statements of the prosecutrix are materially inconsistent and self-contradictory, therefore, the same do not inspire 2026:UHC:3716 confidence at this stage. He would further submit that the conduct of the victim also creates doubt regarding the prosecution story, inasmuch as she had voluntarily left her house and accompanied co-accused Tanveer and stayed with him at a hotel. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2025; that he has no previous criminal history; that, the statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded before the trial court, therefore, there remains no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence; that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no possibility of his absconding; that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the court below vide order dated 21.08.2025; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 08.05.2025 and has no previous criminal antecedents. 10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the statements of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation as well as before the trial court, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, and 2026:UHC:3716 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. 11. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant 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 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=6a812005bebfcf46f2 44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0 9a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66 dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004 ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.15 17:37:18 +05'30'