IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2250 of 2024 Under Section 439 of CrPC / Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 Jakir @ Kalu ……Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Respondent.

Presence Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel appearing through VC and Ms. Aishwarya Thapliyal , learned counsel for the Applicant Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G for the State Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J ( Oral)

1. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Jakir alias Kalu, seeking his release in connection with Case Crime No. 572 of 2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. As per the First Information Report lodged on 21.06.2024, it is alleged that the applicant telephoned the minor daughter of the informant and called her on the pretext of introducing her to his mother. It is further alleged that he took her to a sawmill field and committed rape.

3. The State’s case is primarily built on the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, which detail the incident, along with statements of the informant, eyewitnesses, the school manager (regarding the victim’s age), and the medical examiner. A charge sheet has been filed after completion of the investigation.

4. The medical examination of the victim noted that her hymen was “old torn”, and no spermatozoa were found in the vaginal smear.

5. The applicant was arrested on 23.06.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then. His first and second bail applications were rejected by the trial court, most recently by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 23.10.2024, citing the grave nature of the allegations and the involvement of a minor. The present bail plea has been preferred before the High Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated due to personal enmity. It is stated that the informant suspected the applicant of being in a relationship with his wife, who allegedly had been living with the applicant of her own volition for the past few years.

8. The learned counsel highlights that the FIR was lodged out of vengeance, and that there is no independent corroborative evidence except for the oral statements of the victim, which are susceptible to tutoring and manipulation, especially given the family dispute.

9. The medical report, which found no evidence of spermatozoa and described the hymen as “old torn”, was submitted to counter the allegation of recent penetrative assault. Furthermore, the cross- examination of PW-1 (the informant) has brought inconsistencies to light: notably, he disputed the age of the victim and denied the incident during testimony.

10. It is also submitted that the applicantis a married man aged about 34 years and employed as a mason, submits that he has no prior criminal antecedents and possesses deep roots in the local community. He has been in judicial custody since June 2024, and the trial is currently underway, with some key prosecution witnesses already examined. In support of his plea for bail, the applicant undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or abscond and expresses his willingness to abide by any conditions that this Hon’ble Court may impose.

11. The learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the bail application, emphasising the seriousness of the alleged offence, involving sexual assault on a minor, which attracts the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.

12. It is submitted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are detailed, consistent, and credible, forming a strong prima facie case against the applicant.

13. The State further asserts that the age of the victim, based on the school records, confirms her status as a minor. The medical examination, while not conclusively confirming rape,