Vishesh v. State of Uttarakhand

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

2 4 TH DECEMBER, 2 0 2 5

FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO.1 1 6 2 of 2 0 2 5

Vishesh

..…Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

..…Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant : Mrs. Sheetal Selwal,

Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mrs. Rangoli Purohit,

Brief Holder.

Hon 'ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a,J.

The Applicant-Vishesh is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 137(1)(b), Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Case Crime No.233 of 2024, registered at Police Station ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2 .

Heard Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder for the respondent. 3 .

Sub-Inspector Ruchika Chauhan, the Investigating Officer, is present through video

conferencing. 4 .

The victim (PW1), aged about 16 years has stated in her examination-in-chief that in the month of February, the applicant took her to a hotel and gave her a cold drink. She had taken the cold drink. The applicant forcibly established physical relations with her, while in her cross-examination, she denied the said statement. She stated in her re-examination that she has given the statements in her examination-in-chief under the pressure of the society. She has stated in her cross-examination that she did not go to any room and the applicant had not established forcible physical relations. 5 .

Sub-Inspector Ruchika Chauhan, the Investigating Officer, has informed the Court that she did not find any evidence that the applicant had taken the victim to any hotel. 6 .

Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate, contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, therefore, there is no possibility of his absconding, and, he is in custody since 24.07.2024. 7 .

Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application. However, she

conceded that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in her cross-examination. 8 .

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 9 .

The Bail Application is allowed. 1 0 . Let the applicant-Vishesh be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

_ _ _ __ _ _ _

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 24.12.2025 Neha

NEHA BISHT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6f1c15b6305912b3f008e9a4a8038ee7 326b08b2dtie018b01be753f014836d27, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=3D89DC33779FB9677068452F3 2DE6BA960BFE64D819EE44CA9CCE487B2FE0F 92, cn=NEHA BISHT Date: 2025.12.24 18:18:18 +05'30'