In cases involving heinous offences such as the repeated sexual exploitation of a minor, the gravity of the crime and prima facie corroboration by the victim's testimony outweigh arguments regarding FIR delay or factual improbabilities, which are determined during trial.

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

SL. No. Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures

2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.245 of 2025, under Section 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), 65(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(a)/4(ii), 5(l)(g)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.

3. The First Information Report was lodged by the father of the victim alleging that the mother of the victim had compelled her 13-year-old daughter to engage in sexual intercourse with the applicant and another co-accused on several occasions. It is further alleged that the victim was forced to consume intoxicating liquor. The alleged incidents are stated to have taken place at Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad, and Vrindavan. The statements of the victim were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. 2023, wherein she supported the prosecution version. She was also medically examined.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has remained in judicial custody since 04.06.2025. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is wholly false, concocted and has been lodged with the sole motive of implicating the applicant in a serious offence. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim, the victim was studying in Class IX in a residential School at Dehradun at the relevant time, and therefore the prosecution story, as projected, is inherently improbable and suffers from material inconsistencies. It is submitted that neither in the statement of the victim nor in that of the complainant has it been clarified as to how the mother obtained access to the victim so as to take her from her residential School at Dehradun to various places where the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred. It is further contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about five months from the date of the alleged first incident, for which no satisfactory or plausible explanation has been furnished. According to learned counsel, the father of the victim had no regular access to the victim, as she was residing in a residential School and used to remain in touch with the family only during holidays through telephonic/conference calls, and, therefore, the explanation given for the delayed lodging of the F.I.R. is not trustworthy. It has also been submitted that the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the allegations levelled against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl. It is submitted that the prosecution story stands duly supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., wherein she has consistently supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the victim has also entered the witness box as P.W.1 and has reiterated the prosecution version on oath. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant/father has also supported the case of the prosecution, and the same finds corroboration from other witnesses, who have deposed regarding the victim being taken by her mother, along with the applicant and the co-accused, to different places including Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad