2026:UHC:3729 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 / 2 0 5 1 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel or the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The first bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 302 of 2023, registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, at Police Station Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, according to the prosecution case, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. alleging that the present applicant had developed a romantic relationship with the complainant’s minor daughter and sexually exploited her. It is alleged that the applicant had taken photographs and videos of the victim and thereafter threatened to make the same viral unless she established physical relations with one Ikrar @ Mirchi and the present applicant. It is further alleged that a few days prior to 2026:UHC:3729 lodging of the F.I.R., the applicant called the victim to a sugarcane field and, upon her refusal, threatened to circulate her videos, due to which she became frightened and went to the said place, where the applicant allegedly established physical relations with her forcibly and two unknown associates of the applicant also committed indecent acts with her. It is further alleged that on 19.07.2023, when the victim was sleeping at her home, the complainant noticed her crying, whereupon the victim narrated the entire incident to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that no specific date or time of the alleged incident has been mentioned in the F.I.R.; that a plain reading of the F.I.R. demonstrates that the allegations are concocted; that, although the complainant allegedly came to know about the incident on 19.07.2023, the F.I.R. came to be lodged only on 26.07.2023, and the delay of about nine days in lodging the F.I.R. has not been satisfactorily explained. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant and the victim were known to each other, were in a friendly relationship and used to spend considerable time together. He would further submit that the closeness between the applicant and the victim was known to the complainant’s family 2026:UHC:3729 and the applicant had earlier been threatened by the complainant’s family to stay away from the victim, failing which he would face dire consequences; that, there exists prior enmity between the applicant and the complainant’s family and there is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the victim has not fully supported the prosecution story in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; that the medical examination report of the victim also does not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that, in her statements, the victim had alleged that another person, namely Ikrar @ Mirchi, had also established physical relations with her; however, during her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the said co-accused in proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C., she denied the said allegation, thereby creating material contradictions in the prosecution case. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by the court below vide order dated 30.11.2024; that, the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.08.2023; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; that, the trial is 2026:UHC:3729 likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application and submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was aged about 16 years and 4 months; that, the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as before the doctor who medically examined her, has consistently supported and corroborated the prosecution case by specifically alleging that the present applicant forcibly established physical relations with her. 10. Learned State counsel would further submit that the victim has also been examined before the trial Court as P.W.-1 and, in her deposition, she reiterated the allegations levelled against the present applicant; that, although there may be certain inconsistencies in the victim’s statement regarding the role attributed to co-accused Ikrar @ Mirchi, the same do not affect the allegations against the present applicant; that, according to the prosecution, the victim has remained consistent with regard to the role of the present applicant in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., before the medical officer, as well as in her testimony before the trial Court, and the same fully corroborate the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. 2026:UHC:3729 11. It is not in dispute that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was a minor aged about 16 years and 4 months and the victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as before the doctor who medically examined her, has specifically alleged that the present applicant had established physical relations with her against her will. The victim has also been examined before the trial Court as P.W.- 1 and, so far as the role of the present applicant is concerned, she has consistently supported the prosecution case. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant regarding contradictions in the statement of the victim with respect to co-accused Ikrar @ Mirchi is concerned, the said contradiction does not materially affect the allegations levelled against the present applicant. Prima facie, the statements of the victim regarding the involvement of the present applicant remain consistent and duly corroborate the prosecution story. 12. Considering the gravity and nature of allegations, the specific role assigned to the applicant, the fact that the victim is a minor, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 13.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3 e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67e bbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cab fd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690 a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.18 15:54:46 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3729