SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1640

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AKARAM ALIAS ARMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
BA1 2081 / 2025



##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:3811

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

BA1 No.2081 of 2025

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi and Mr.

Dharmesh Kumar, Advocates for the

applicant.

Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Brief Holder for

the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This first bail application has been

moved by the applicant seeking regular

bail in F.I.R. No.401 of 2025, under

Sections 137(2) and Section 64(2) of

B.N.S., 2023, registered at Police Station

Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar.

3. As per the allegations contained in

the F.I.R., the applicant, by allegedly

deceiving the complainant, called her

from her house at about 12:00 midnight

and took her on his motorcycle to

Saharanpur. It is further alleged that

another motorcycle, ridden by one

Naushad, was accompanying them.

Thereafter, the complainant was

allegedly confined in a room, where both

the applicant and Naushad repeatedly

committed rape upon her. It is also

alleged that, on account of police

pressure, on 15.05.2025 at about 08:00

p.m., the accused persons brought one

Manish Kumar Maurya with them near

the police station, while they themselves

remained standing at some distance, and

the complainant was sent to the police

station along with Manish.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant

submits that the applicant has been

falsely implicated in the present case. It

##PAGE2##

2026:UHC:3811

is further submitted that the applicant

has no criminal antecedents and is in

judicial custody since 17.07.2025.

Learned counsel contends that a bare

perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that,

according to the prosecution story itself,

the complainant had reached the police

station on 15.05.2025 at about 08:00

p.m.; however, no complaint was lodged

on that date and the F.I.R. came to be

registered only on 17.05.2025 at about

07:50 p.m., for which no plausible

explanation has been furnished by the

prosecution. It is further submitted that

the medical examination of the

complainant does not support the

allegation of forcible sexual assault,

inasmuch as, the doctor did not find any

internal or external injury suggestive of

forceful intercourse. Learned counsel

further submits that, in her statements

recorded under Sections 180 and 183,

the complainant has made material

improvements and contradictions from

the version narrated in the F.I.R., which

creates serious doubt regarding the

veracity of the prosecution story.

5. Learned State Counsel vehemently

opposed the bail application.

6. The F.I.R. appears to have been

lodged after an unexplained delay,

despite the allegation that the

complainant had reached the police

station on 15.05.2025 itself. The medical

examination report also does not indicate

any internal or external injuries

suggestive of forcible sexual assault.

Moreover, material contradictions and

improvements are stated to exist

between the version contained in the

F.I.R. and the statements recorded

subsequently under Sections 180 and

##PAGE3##

2026:UHC:3811

183, which prima facie creates doubt

regarding the prosecution story. The

applicant has no criminal antecedents

and is in judicial custody since

17.07.2025. There is no material on

record to show that the applicant would

misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with

prosecution evidence if released on bail.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any

opinion on the ultimate merits of the

matter, this Court is of the considered

view that the applicant has made out a

case for grant of bail at this stage. The

bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant-Akaram @ Arman

be released on bail, on executing

personal bond and furnishing two reliable

sureties, each of like amount, to the

satisfaction of Court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

18.05.2026

Arpan

A JAR IP SA WN A L DDC23ss0JDAte.a 9OiN a5 =rg I2 C tSi.U U: 4 ai e0 Bt WcR l. T :da 92 N = 2T Tl Ad 80I u

0

AyN dO L7= m

2

R s, 4beF 6io A 4b7ag .U= 06Kb e3n 5T 3H Hr9be = .T 53 1I 6d AGA 013 88 Nb 6EHR 9 a 1D0y 4A 83 8C FD,f8A K :9O C 2F9HR f 1 6U 05eP A 7 :4e4R 4A N 0A45T 4N 2D1b A O +2 9a,J D B 0AF 33 AE

5

7eIUS AA 'c,

3

WT 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top