[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1339/2024 on 6 June, 2025
2025:UHC:4643
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No.1339 of 2024
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Medha Pande, Advocate
for the applicant.
Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular
bail in F.I.R. No.0299 of 2022, under
Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and
Section 323, 376-A, 376-B, 504 & 506
I.P.C. and Bail Rejection under Section 5
¼M½ ¼<½/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section
323, 376-AB, 504 & 506 I.P.C., registered
at Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
3. It is contended by learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant that applicant
has falsely been implicated in the instant
crime; has no criminal history and is
languishing in jail since 13.12.2022.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submits that there are major
contradictions in the statements of the
alleged victim and the complainant; that,
the complainant has narrated in the F.I.R.
that the alleged incident took place in the
intervening night of 18/19.07.2022 and
she took the victim for medical
examination on 19.07.2022, but neither
F.I.R. was lodged nor medical of the victim
was conducted; that, she went to Women
Helpline on 30.09.2022 and the victim has
narrated the story as mentioned in the
complaint before the Women Helpline; but,
surprisingly, still no F.I.R. was lodged on
that day also and, ultimately, the F.I.R.
2025:UHC:4643
came to be lodged on 01.12.2022, which
is after almost four and a half months of
the alleged incident; that, in the statement
of the victim recorded under Section 161 &
164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that the
applicant inserted his finger in her vagina
and, as such, this is not a case of
penetrative assault; that, the applicant as
well as the complainant, who are husband
& wife, were not having the cordial
relations with each other, due to which,
she roped the applicant in a false case;
that, since the victim has been examined,
there is no chance of applicant victimizing
the complainant or the victim or his
tampering with the evidence. Learned
Senior Advocate for the applicant submits
that in case, the applicant is granted bail,
he will not misuse the same and will
furnish the bail surety as per the
satisfaction of this Court.
4. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application.
5. Considering the submission of
learned counsel for the parties and without
expressing any opinion as to the final
merits of the case, this Court is of the view
that applicant deserves bail at this stage.
6. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant, namely, Jitendra
Singh 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.)
06.06.2025
Arpan
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2C
EA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.06.06 17:20:37 +05’30’
[ad_2]
Source link