2026:UHC:3929 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 8 0 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, 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–Jitendra Tomar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No.418 of 2024, registered under Sections 137(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, 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 an F.I.R. has been lodged by the father of the victim alleging therewith that an unknown person lured the son of the complainant and took him away with the intention of killing him, on which, Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet against the present applicant. 6. He would further submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and that there are material contradictions in the prosecution story; that, the victim, in his statement, alleged that when the accused assaulted him, two persons arrived on a motorcycle and, upon seeing them, the applicant fled from the spot, however, the statements of the persons who allegedly brought the 2026:UHC:3929 victim back to his house reveal that the victim himself came walking to his residence and, upon being questioned, started shouting and weeping, whereafter nearby persons gathered at the place, thus, according to learned counsel, the aforesaid contradictions create serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version or the statement of the victim and no independent eyewitness to the alleged occurrence has been produced by the prosecution; that, the medical examination report does not corroborate the allegations of penetrative sexual assault and no definite opinion regarding commission of the alleged sexual offence has been rendered by the concerned Medical Officer, who medically examined the victim. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would also submit that the applicant was not apprehended at the spot and no test identification parade was ever conducted; that, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant, which is evident from the arrest memo itself, wherein the relevant columns pertaining to communication of grounds of arrest are left blank, thereby violating the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the settled principles governing arrest procedure. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is languishing in judicial custody since 04.11.2024; that he has no previous criminal history; that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and, therefore, there remains no likelihood of 2026:UHC:3929 tampering with the prosecution evidence; that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail; that the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the court below vide order dated 28.08.2025; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that he is in judicial custody since 04.11.2024. 11. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. 12. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant–Jitendra Tomar 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, subject to the usual terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court concerned. [ ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 20.05.2026 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=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67eb bd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a 191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.22 13:52:17 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3929