Allowed

Arvind v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Jun 2025BA1/424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for regular bail under IPC and POCSO Act, the court observed that the applicant has been in jail since 29.09.2024 and the trial commenced with four prosecution witnesses examined. The court held that detention served no useful purpose and allowed bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties of the same amount.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/424/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant- Arvind, S/o Jaypal Singh is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 28.04.2025, registered as FIR No. 115 of 2024 at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar which was lodged against the unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and, in fact the applicant was in love with the victim which she admits in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that victim herself refused to go with the medical examination which is evident from the medico legal report, annexed as Annexure 11 to the counter affidavit. Apart from this, he submits that charge sheet has already been filed and applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2024 and the trial has been commenced and up till date only four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 5. Learned State counsel has not disputed this fact that charge sheet has already been filed and the trial has also been commenced and applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2024. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the charge sheet has already been filed and the

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/424/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1.
Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2.
Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3.
Present applicant- Arvind, S/o Jaypal
Singh is praying for regular bail in relation
to FIR dated 28.04.2025, registered as FIR
No. 115 of 2024 at P.S. Kankhal, District
Haridwar which was lodged against the
unknown
person
for
the
offences
punishable
under
Sections
363,
366,
376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 5(l)/6 of
the POCSO Act.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated, and, in fact the
applicant was in love with the victim which
she admits in her statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further
submits that victim herself refused to go
with the medical examination which is
evident from the medico legal report,
annexed as Annexure 11 to the counter
affidavit. Apart from this, he submits that
charge sheet has already been filed and
applicant is languishing in
jail since
29.09.2024
and
the
trial
has
been
commenced and up till date only four
prosecution witnesses have already been
examined.
5.
Learned
State
counsel
has
not
disputed this fact that charge sheet has
already been filed and the trial has also
been
commenced
and
applicant
is
languishing in jail since 29.09.2024.
6.
After hearing the arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties and further
taking into consideration that the charge
sheet has already been filed and the

applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2024 and the trial has already been commenced, therefore, there is no useful purpose to detain the applicant in custody, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Arvind be released bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.06.2025 Parul

applicant is languishing in
jail since
29.09.2024 and the trial has already been
commenced, therefore, there is no useful
purpose to detain the applicant in custody,
therefore, this Court is of the view that the
applicant deserves for bail.
7.
Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case, the bail
application is allowed.
8.
Let the applicant Arvind be released
bail on his executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
06.06.2025
Parul

Arvind v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chaman Babu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Javed Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sohil Vs State of Uttarakhand

Balwant Prakash Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs Director / Registrar