IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.1873 of 2025

28^th November, 2025 Rijwan @ Sahil --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

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

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Applicant Rijwan @ Sahil, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 91 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter; that the applicant and the victim were good friends and known to each other for a long time; that they had planned to go for an outing to Shimla with the permission of the victim’s parents; that the victim was about 16 years of age at the time of the incident; that in her statement recorded as PW1, she stated that she had known the accused for more than two years; that, she went with the applicant on her own sweet will and there were no physical relations between them. This fact is also verified from the medical report of the victim, where the Doctor have given the opinion that no definite opinion regarding sexual assault can be given; that, after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed; and that there is no definite medical opinion regarding sexual assault.

4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and that there are contradictions between her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her deposition as PW1.

submits that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive pieces of evidence.

6. 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.

7. 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.)

28.11.2025 BS B T A S L IN W G A H NDDC2ess1cD te n a. 8 O iN a 5 =r g c =5 t i .U U : b4 a i e FB tcR l . T : f a 4A 2 N = 2 2 T l 1 0 L I 8 u 0 A yN 8 O= W c m 2 7 R s, dfF 5 i A b 5 o Ab g f . U 4 = 1N Ke n D b Td H Hr T e = . a C 1 2 Id A S G 7 A 0 9 0 8 N I b c 4 N H 1R 1 eDE y cA A G8 8 C 1 8 , B K 7 H: 6 O 4 b 3 A H A 4 1 d 1 UL 1 A 0 D : b WR 1 3 c N F 8 T 3 C 5 A D 4 b 8 1 O + 6 N 1, 2 4 0 1 F 6 T 0 A 5 4 e U , 6 S ' F 8p 3 T 8 I 9 c N 0 o 0A a ' s GA C 7 4 t HR a 3 9 D l F A 3 C 5A 7 K o F d 9 H 4 d 0 e 8 A e , a 3 = N f 4 72 D 6 26 , E a3 o B 10 u 5 7 = c1 H 3 0, D 2 IG f E e H 5 2