SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:2504 BA1 No. 163 of 2026 Sahib ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsels for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Sahib, aged about 19 years, S/o Guljar, R/o Village Garh, Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 425 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 11(iv)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has been perused. 5. As per the prosecution story and the contents of the FIR, it is alleged that the Applicant, along with co-accused persons, abducted the minor victim from near her house, took her on a motorcycle, and confined her in a room on the pretext that her father was unwell and that they would take her to him. It is further alleged that the victim somehow managed to escape through a window and subsequently reached the police. 6. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing for grant of bail, submits that there are inconsistencies in the statements made by the victim and that a conclusion of guilt cannot be drawn solely on the basis of such statements. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, discrepancies in the victim’s statements led to the exoneration of other co-accused persons, namely Ahshan and Sameer. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application, submitting that the present case pertains to the abduction and sexual assault of a minor girl, who was forcibly taken and confined with criminal intent. It is further submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case, and therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that, at this stage, certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the victim raise questions regarding their reliability. Whether such statements, standing alone, would be sufficient for conviction is a matter to be determined during trial. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 10. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 11. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 08.04.2026 Shiksha