Dismissed¶8

Shubham v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 May 2026BA1/1775/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected; BA1 No.1775 of 2025; High Court of Uttarakhand; Alok Mahra, J.; decided 06.05.2026; FIR/Case Crime No.245 of 2025, P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar; Sections 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), 65(1) B.N.S. 2023; Sections 3(a)/4(ii), 5(l)(g)/6 POCSO Act 2012; 13-year-old minor victim; mother as procurer; incidents at Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad, Vrindavan; victim statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. 2023; victim deposed as P.W.1; delayed FIR explanation; judicial custody since 04.06.2025; prolonged custody not a ground for bail; custodial protection necessary; no ground for bail made out.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of accusations, the age of the victim, and the overall facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. ¶7

Shubham Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.245 of 2025, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, under Sections 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), 65(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(a)/4(ii), 5(l)(g)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶2

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusations, the age of the victim, and the overall facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

In view of the heinous and grave nature of the allegations (repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl), the age of the victim, and the possibility of influencing witnesses, the Court finds that custodial protection of the applicant is necessary.

¶6

Key takeaways

Prolonged custody alone is not a ground for bail in serious offences of this nature.ratio¶6
The explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R., even if considered, does not dilute the gravity of the allegations at the bail stage.ratio¶6
The defence arguments regarding improbability of the prosecution story, the alleged delay of the F.I.R., and the mother's access to the victim are matters of trial and cannot be examined in detail at the bail stage.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand (Alok Mahra, J.) rejected the first regular-bail application (BA1 No.1775 of 2025) of an applicant implicated in F.I.R./Case Crime No.245 of 2025, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, under Sections 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), 65(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(a)/4(ii), 5(l)(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The FIR, lodged by the father of the victim, alleges that the victim's mother repeatedly procured her 13-year-old daughter for sexual intercourse with the applicant and a co-accused at Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad and Vrindavan, and forced her to consume intoxicating liquor. The victim's statements under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S. 2023 and her deposition as P.W.1 prima facie support the prosecution case, corroborated by other witnesses. The Court held that the explanation for the delayed FIR does not dilute the gravity of the allegations, that the defence pleas of improbability, delay and the mother's access to the victim are matters of trial, and that prolonged custody alone is no ground for bail in such heinous offences; given the heinousness of the offence, the child victim's age and the risk of influencing witnesses, custodial protection was held necessary and bail was rejected.

¶1

2026:UHC:3426

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1 No.1775 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the complainant. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.245 of 2025, under Section 3(5), 351(3), 70(2), 65(1) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(a)/4(ii), 5(l)(g)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar.
			3. The First Information Report was lodged by the father of the victim alleging that the mother of the victim had compelled her 13-year-old daughter to engage in sexual intercourse with the applicant and another co-accused on several occasions. It is further alleged that the victim was forced to consume intoxicating liquor. The alleged incidents are stated to have taken place at Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad, and Vrindavan. The statements of the victim were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. 2023, wherein she supported the prosecution version. She was also medically examined.
			4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and

¶3

2026:UHC:3426

¶4

has remained in judicial custody since 04.06.2025. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is wholly false, concocted and has been lodged with the sole motive of implicating the applicant in a serious offence. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim, the victim was studying in Class IX in a residential School at Dehradun at the relevant time, and therefore the prosecution story, as projected, is inherently improbable and suffers from material inconsistencies. It is submitted that neither in the statement of the victim nor in that of the complainant has it been clarified as to how the mother obtained access to the victim so as to take her from her residential School at Dehradun to various places where the alleged incidents are stated to have occurred. It is further contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about five months from the date of the alleged first incident, for which no satisfactory or plausible explanation has been furnished. According to learned counsel, the father of the victim had no regular access to the victim, as she was residing in a residential School and used to remain in touch with the family only during holidays through telephonic/conference calls, and, therefore, the explanation given for the delayed lodging of the F.I.R. is not trustworthy. It has also been submitted that the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submit that the allegations levelled against the

¶5

2026:UHC:3426

¶6

applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl. It is submitted that the prosecution story stands duly supported by the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S., wherein she has consistently supported the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the victim has also entered the witness box as P.W.1 and has reiterated the prosecution version on oath. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant/father has also supported the case of the prosecution, and the same finds corroboration from other witnesses, who have deposed regarding the victim being taken by her mother, along with the applicant and the coaccused, to different places including Haridwar, Agra, Ghaziabad and Vrindavan. It is, thus, submitted that in view of the seriousness of the offence, the age of the victim, the material collected during investigation, and the statements of the victim and other witnesses, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegations are grave and serious, involving repeated sexual exploitation of a minor girl, which is a heinous offence affecting the moral and physical integrity of a child. The victim’s statement recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of B.N.S.S. and her deposition as P.W.1 prima facie support the prosecution case, which is further corroborated by other witnesses. At this stage, the defence arguments regarding improbability, alleged delay of F.I.R., and access of the

¶7

2026:UHC:3426

¶8

mother to the victim are matters of trial
and cannot be examined in detail. The explanation for delay, even if considered, does not dilute the gravity of allegations at this stage. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2025; however, prolonged custody alone is not a ground for bail in serious offences of this nature. Considering the heinousness of the offence, the age of the victim, and the possibility of influencing witnesses, this Court finds that custodial protection of the applicant is necessary.
7. Considering the nature of accusations, the age of the victim, and the overall facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 06.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dd db7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.06 17:43:40 +05'30'

Shubham v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Giri Vs Gulzar

N Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhishek Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Gaira Alias Rakku Vs State of Uttarakhand

Satendra Chauhan Vs Sonu Kumar