IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 584 of 2025

24^th September, 2025

Sumit --Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Applicant Sumit, who is in judicial custody in

Case Crime/ FIR No.58 of 2025, under Section 69 & 77 of B.N.S. and Section 67(A) of I.T. Act, P. S. Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar, has sought his release on

bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 19.01.2025, the First Information Report was lodged by the informant/complainant alleging therein that she was on talking terms with the present applicant, who had offered

her friendship. It is further alleged that on 17.12.2024, when she went to her school, the applicant took her to a hotel and committed rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage and also made a video clip of the incident. Thereafter, on 16.01.2025, the applicant called her, but upon her refusal, he made the said video viral. Consequently, the First Information Report came to be registered.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 17.02.2025. He would further contend that although the FIR was lodged on 19.01.2025, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 17.12.2024, and there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the same. It is also urged that there existed mere love and affection between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and at no point of time did the applicant promise to marry her.

5. He has further submitted that the prosecutrix herself produced the pen drive, allegedly containing the viral video, along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which clearly establishes that the prosecutrix herself had circulated the said video. He has also submitted that, during the course of investigation, it has come on record that the hotel alleged by the prosecutrix as the place of occurrence was, in fact, closed and non-functional on account of its dilapidated condition. Hence, the applicant is entitled to bail.

6. Learned State Counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, however, she would fairly submit that the FIR is delayed one.

7. In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

8. The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

24.09.2025 BS