Dismissed¶7

Fardeen v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Jul 2026BA1/1945/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court bail application rejected; BA1/1945/2025; Fardeen v. State of Uttarakhand; FIR No. 0238 of 2025 dated 30.05.2025, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar; charges under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 BNS 2023 read with Section 5/6 POCSO Act; victim statement under Section 183 BNS 2023; minor victim aged 12 at first incident (DOB 17.07.2009); medical report indicated sexual assault; applicant in custody since 21.07.2025; trial commenced; trial to be expedited preferably within six months; single-judge order by Rakesh Thapliyal, J.; decided 07-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; as a consequential direction, Trial Court to expedite the trial preferably within six months from receipt of the order. ¶7

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail refused; as a consequential direction, Trial Court to expedite the trial preferably within six months from receipt of the order.

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Fardeen, chargesheeted under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 of BNS 2023 read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act in FIR No. 0238 of 2025 (P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar), should be released on bail. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Bail application rejected: after hearing rival submissions and going through the record including the victim's statement and the medical report, the Court found no merit, since on the first date of the incident the victim was 12 years old and the medical report supported the prosecution's case.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Trial Court directed to make all possible efforts to expedite the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order, and the trial may proceed without being influenced by these observations.

¶10

Key takeaways

Registry directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial court for necessary compliance (closing administrative direction; surrounding text partly garbled by OCR).obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused - Uttarakhand High Court (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.), BA1/1945/2025, order dated 07-07-2026. Fardeen (in jail since 21.07.2025; trial commenced), implicated along with one 'Adam' in FIR No. 0238 of 2025 dated 30.05.2025 of P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and chargesheeted under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 of BNS 2023 read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, sought bail. The Court rejected the application: per the record and the victim's statement, on the first date of the incident (stated to have occurred in 2021; victim's date of birth 17.07.2009) the victim was only 12 years old, and the medical report supported the prosecution's case of sexual assault. Counsel's pleas that the applicant was innocent, known to the victim through Instagram, that no offence was made out on the victim's statement, and that the charge sheet was filed cursorily did not prevail. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial preferably within six months of receiving the order, the trial to proceed without being influenced by these observations; the Registry was directed to send the order to the trial court for necessary compliance.

¶1

UKHC010163082025

¶2

2026:UHC:5491

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/1945/2025 Fardeen --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
			1. Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant Fardeen, S/o Abdul Hasan is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 30.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 0238 of 2025 P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar wherein the present applicant along with one another person, namely, ‘Adam’ have been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS 2023. In this FIR on completion of investigation the present applicant has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 87 of BNS 2023 read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and, in fact, the victim known to the applicant since they were friend through instagram. He further submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2025 and the trial has already been commenced and taking into consideration that the victim admits about their friendship in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS 2023 the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant

¶4

UKHC010163082025

¶5

2026:UHC:5491

¶6

further argued that even on the perusal of the statement of the victim no offence is made out and the charge sheet has been filed in a very cursory manner. 6. On the other side Mr. Vijay Khanduri learned Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that on the first date of the incident, which according to the statement of the victim was happened in the year of 2021, the victim whose date of birth is 17.07.2009 was only 12 years old. He also submits that the medical report also reveals that there was sexual assault with the victim and the Doctor who conducted the medical also stated that it cannot be ruled out that there is no sexual assault with the victim. 7. After hearing rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the record including the statement of the victim and the medical report this Court does not find any merit since on the first date of the incident the victim was 12 years old and the medical report also support the case of the prosecution, in such view of the matter the instant bail application lacks merit and rejected. 8. After dictation of the order learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2025 and almost one year has been passed and the trial is already commenced, therefore, the trial court be directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 9. The State counsel has no objection on such submission. 10. In such view of the matter, the Trial Court is directed to make all possible efforts to expedite the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order. It is further made clear that the Trial Court

¶7

UKHC010163082025

¶8

2026:UHC:5491

¶9

may influ 11. this nece	proceed enced wit Registry order to ssary com	with the trial without being h the observation as above. is directed to send the copy of the concerned trial court for pliance.
		(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 07-07-2026
Parul

Fardeen v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fardeen 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

Jasveer Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahane Alam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dimpal Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakhi Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kurban Vs State of Uttarakhand

Poonam Jakhnal and Others Vs Union of India and Another