Rajeev v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S

2026:UHC:3218

BA1 No. 561 of 2026 Rajeev

....Applicant

Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the Applicant.

¶2Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶3The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Rajeev S/o Shri Ramautar, R/o Salempur, Bijnor, Chandpur, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 117 of 2025, registered at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, culminated into Special Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2026, for the offences punishable under Section 65(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and under Sections 3(A)/4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶4Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

¶5Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on

10.11.2025 by the informant alleging that when the victim, aged about 14 years, was returning from Lahadpur Nadi between 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., the present Applicant, who runs a medical shop on the said route, committed sexual assault upon her. On the basis of said allegations, the present case came to be registered against the Applicant.

¶6Learned counsel for the Applicant submits, as a primary ground for consideration of bail, that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the prosecution story suffers from material inconsistencies. Learned counsel further submits that in the medical examination of the victim, no external or internal injury, no bleeding and no swelling were found and no definite opinion regarding sexual assault was rendered. It is further argued that in her statement recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the victim has not fully supported the prosecution version and material contradictions emerge when her statements are read conjointly. It is also submitted that the Applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 11.11.2025.

¶7Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application contending that the victim is a minor and in her statements recorded during investigation she has made specific allegations against the Applicant. It is argued that on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., involvement of the Applicant stands disclosed and the charge-sheet has accordingly been submitted.

¶8This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At this stage, without entering into the merits of the matter, certain aspects weigh with this Court for the purpose of bail. Firstly, there appear to be inconsistencies in the versions attributed to the prosecutrix, which shall of course be a matter for appreciation during trial. Secondly, the medical report, prima facie, does not reveal injuries or contemporaneous signs lending immediate corroboration in the manner urged by the prosecution. Thirdly, the Applicant is stated to have no criminal history and has remained incarcerated since 11.11.2025.

¶9This Court is conscious of the gravity of allegations under the POCSO Act; however, while adjudicating a prayer for bail, a tentative assessment alone is required. Considering the inconsistencies pointed out, the medical material on record, the period of incarceration and other attending facts and circumstances, this Court finds sufficient grounds to enlarge the Applicant on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶10Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

¶11Let the Applicant be released on bail, upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶12All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶13It is made clear that observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

28.04.2026 Shiksha