Uttarakhand High Court
Pradeep Arora vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 December, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.306 of 2024
Pradeep Arora .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain,
Brief Holder for the State.
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Chetna Latwal, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Special
Sessions Trial No. 180 of 2019, State Vs. Kajal Puri and
others, in FIR/Case Crime No. 258 of 2021, under Section
386, 120B, 506, 376D, 376 (2) (f) (n), 115, 323 IPC and
Section 5 (g) (n) (l)/6 of the Protection of Children From
Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kankhal, District
Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant.
His first bail application was dismissed in non-prosecution
on 07.11.2022.
4. According to the FIR, the co-accused was into the
flesh trade. She wanted to grab the informant, so that
another Mahant could be trapped and blackmailed. The
victim a young girl of 15 years was staying with the co-
2
accused. FIR records that the victim was molested by the
applicant and the co-accused. FIR is quite in detail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that according to the FIR, the applicant only molested the
victim and subsequently, the statement was improvised to
say that the applicant sexually exploited the victim. It is
argued that, in fact, the co-accused wanted to trap and
blackmail one Mahant by taking his obscene photographs.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the informant would
submit that the applicant had constantly sexually exploited
the victim which the victim has stated at trial.
7. Learned State counsel would submit that the
victim has already been examined at the trial and she has
supported the prosecution case.
8. In fact, the victim was staying with the co-
accused since childhood. According to the victim, she was
sexually exploited by the applicant and the co-accused. She
was used by co-accused for varied purposes. In her
examination, the victim has revealed that her age is 15
years.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this
Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the
3
applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves
to be rejected.
10. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
26.12.2024
Jitendra
