2026:UHC:4318 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.2524 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. G.C. Lakchaura, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.387 of 2025, under Sections 64, 65(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. 3. An F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim against the applicant alleging therein that she went across a video on whatsapp in which her daughter is seen involved in sexual act with the applicant and the age of the victim is 17 years at the time of alleged incident. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is languishing in judicial custody since 01.11.2025. It is contended that during investigation, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. supported the prosecution case; however, in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. before the learned Magistrate, she completely resiled from the allegations and categorically stated that she was not the girl appearing in the alleged viral video. The victim further stated that the video pertained to some other person and that certain villagers had merely spread rumours identifying her as the girl shown therein. It is submitted that acting solely on such rumours, and without verifying the true facts, the complainant, who is the mother of the victim, lodged the present F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that during trial, both the complainant and the victim have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively, 2026:UHC:4318 and both have failed to support the prosecution case. They have categorically denied the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and have not attributed any incriminating role to the applicant. It is thus argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution having already been examined and having turned hostile, there remains no likelihood of the applicant influencing or tampering with the prosecution evidence. 5. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and, therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that although the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, certain circumstances weigh in favour of the applicant at this stage. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically denied her presence in the alleged viral video. She has stated that the video pertains to some other person and that a misconception was created in the village regarding her identity. The complainant, who is the mother of the victim, has also not supported the prosecution version during her deposition before the trial Court. Both the complainant and the victim have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and have not substantiated the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. This Court further finds that the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined and, therefore, the possibility of the applicant influencing or tampering with the prosecution evidence stands substantially diminished. The applicant is in judicial custody since 01.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the nature of evidence available on record, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, and the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail 2026:UHC:4318 is an exception, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 8. Let the applicant-Farman 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.) 30.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510 9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.30 16:53:55 +05'30' 2026:UHC:4318