Allowed¶4

Balwant Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Jun 2025BA1/666/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application BA1/666/2025, Uttarakhand High Court, Rakesh Thapliyal J., decided 06.06.2025. Applicant Balwant Prakash (cousin brother of the victim; defence plea of malicious implication arising out of land dispute between applicant's father and informant; claim that no opinion regarding sexual relationship was given by the Doctor) sought regular bail for offences under Sections 64(2)(f), 65(1) of BNS 2023 and Section 5(n)/6 of POCSO Act in FIR/Case Crime No. 36 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024, P.S. Chamba, District Tehri Garhwal. Bail allowed: custody since 11.09.2024, charge sheet already filed, no need of custodial interrogation; release on personal bond with two reliable sureties of like amount; decision without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted: applicant Balwant Prakash to be released upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned; decision taken without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/666/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant- Balwant Prakash S/o Prem Lal is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 11.09.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2024 at P.S. Chamba District Tehri Garhwal wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 65(1) of the BNS 2023 and Section 5(n)/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case of malicious implication which is evident from the fact that there is a land dispute in between the applicant’s father and the informant and the present applicant is the cousin brother of the victim. Apart from this, he submits that no opinion with regard to the sexual relationship has been given by the Doctor, and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2024, and furthermore, charge sheet has already been filed, and, as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 5. On the other side, learned State counsel submits that the victim in her statement supports the case of the prosecution, however, she admits about land dispute in between the applicant’s father and the informant. He also submits that since charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 6. After hearing the arguments of the

SL.
No.

Date

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

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/666/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1.
Mr.
Bharat
Chaudhary,
learned
counsel for the applicant.
2.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3.
Present applicant- Balwant Prakash
S/o Prem Lal is praying for regular bail in
relation
to
FIR
dated
11.09.2024
registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2024
at P.S. Chamba District Tehri Garhwal
wherein the present applicant has been
implicated for the offences punishable
under Sections 64(2)(f), 65(1) of the BNS
2023 and Section 5(n)/6 of the POCSO
Act.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that this is a case of malicious
implication which is evident from the fact
that there is a land dispute in between the
applicant’s father and the informant and
the present applicant is the cousin brother
of the victim. Apart from this, he submits
that no opinion with regard to the sexual
relationship has been given by the Doctor,
and the present applicant is languishing in
jail since 11.09.2024, and furthermore,
charge sheet has already been filed, and,
as such, there is no need of custodial
interrogation of the applicant.
5.
On the other side, learned State
counsel submits that the victim in her
statement
supports
the
case
of
the
prosecution, however, she admits about
land dispute in between the applicant’s
father and the informant. He also submits
that since charge sheet has already been
filed, therefore, there is no need of
custodial interrogation of the present
applicant.
6.
After hearing the arguments of the

Balwant Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Prakash v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chaman Babu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Javed Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Arvind Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sohil Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs Director / Registrar