COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL. Dat or directions

No. e and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures 2025:UHC:6831

BA 1^st No.1354 of 2025

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the Applicant.

2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the Applicant – Aslam S/o Iqbal, with a prayer that he may be released on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.499 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(d), 376(2)(dha) of IPC and under Section 3ka/4(ii), g(cha) (tha)/6 of POCSO Act, at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, as there are no case made out against him, and he has falsely been

implicated in the present matter.

4. The main contention in support of the bail put before this Court by the learned counsel for the accused/Applicant is that the victim in the present matter has not supported the prosecution story. The complainant is the father of the victim, who lodged an FIR before the SHO, Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar, with a complaint that her minor daughter aged about 17 years was enticed by one Aas Mohammad S/o Hasim. He took her along with two other men and sexually exploited her and also threatened her with dire consequences,

if she reveals the incident to anyone.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted the (certified copies of the statement of the victim) and relying on the statement, and submits that the victim has not supported the prosecution story at all, and therefore, no ground are made whatsoever and considering her statement the

accused/Applicant may be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application has been strongly opposed on behalf of the learned State Counsel with a contention that as per the statements of the victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC, the victim has specifically named Aslam (Applicant) and Aas Mohammad, and she has also named another person as Kuldeep, and as per her statement, the victim is clearly alleged the Applicant of committing the offence of aggregative penetrative sexual assault against her.

7. Learned State Counsel also contends that the incident is supported with the medical, and as if the conduct of the Applicant is seen, the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC had been issued against the Applicant indicating his conduct, whereby it is contended that if the Applicant/accused is enlarged on bail, he may never come to face the trial.

8. Without going into the merits of the case as that would affect the merit in the trial, at this juncture considering the statement of the victim, this Court finds the ground for bail to be sufficient.

allowed

9. Bail Application is . Let the Applicant, Aslam, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ashish Naithani, J.)

04.08.2025 Nitesh/