Dismissed¶¶12

Kurban v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Jul 2026BA1/749/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; BA1/749/2026; bail dismissed 07.07.2026 by Rakesh Thapliyal, J.; applicant Kurban; Case Crime No. 839 of 2025, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar; Sections 70(2), 87, 127(2), 137(2), 333, 351(2), 352 BNS 2023 with Section 5(g)/6 POCSO Act; Special Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2025; disputed victim age and madarsa/birth certificates alleged forged; medical report; bail refused.

What did the court decide?

After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material collected during investigation, including the medical report and the statements of the victim, her brother and the applicant, the Court did not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. ¶¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Kurban, charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 839 of 2025 (Sections 70(2), 87, 127(2), 137(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act) and facing trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2025, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶¶3

Court's answer

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application BA1/749/2026 of Kurban, S/o Shri Galib, dismissed on 07.07.2026 by Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. of the Uttarakhand High Court. The applicant stands charge sheeted in Case Crime No. 839 of 2025, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar, for offences punishable under Sections 70(2), 87, 127(2), 137(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, and faces trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2025. Counsel for the applicant urged innocence and false implication; a relationship with the victim evidenced by 742 telephonic conversations between 20.04.2025 and 18.08.2025; forgery of two date-of-birth records (a Daru Ulum certificate and a Registrar Birth and Death certificate procured on 09.09.2025, both showing 04.02.2008); inconsistencies in the statements of the victim and her brother about her schooling; and that the madarsa issuing the certificate was established only on 12.12.2019 and recognised on 06.05.2020. The learned AGA opposed, submitting that the age question is completely the subject matter of trial, that the applicant's uncle admitted he was with the victim on the date of incident, that of five persons implicated only two (including Naushad) were charge sheeted, and that the medical report showing an old torn hymen supported the prosecution case. Weighing the investigation material, the medical report and the statements of the victim, her brother and the applicant, the Court found no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and dismissed the application.

¶1

UKHC010075862026

¶2

2026:UHC:5512

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			BA1/749/2026 Kurban --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
			Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant-Kurban, S/o Shri Galib is praying for bail in reference to Case Crime No.839 of 2025 wherein the applicant has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 70(2), 87, 127(2), 137(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act, P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar and is now facing trial in Special Sessions Trial No.212 of 2025. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and infact he was in love with the victim since from 20.04.2025 to 18.08.2025 at about 742 times both of them were in telephonic conversation. He submits that in order to make out the case under the POCSO Act, the two documents were forged; one is the certificate of the _Daru Ulum_about the date of birth of the victim, according to which the date of birth is shown as 04.02.2008 thereafter after the incident another birth certificate was

¶4

UKHC010075862026

¶5

2026:UHC:5512

¶6

procured on 09.09.2025, which is annexed as Annexure 8, issued from the Registrar Birth and Death wherein the same date of birth is shown i.e. 04.02.2008. He submits that there is consisting contradictions on the statement of the victim since during investigation she stated that she never went to any institution but subsequent thereto she changed her statement and stated that she studied in “Naushad Madarsa” where she studied up to 7^th standard and the brother of the victim in his statement under Section 180 of BNSS, during investigation, stated that the victim studied in “Madarsa.” 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the Madarsa from where the certificate was obtained was established in 12.12.2019 and recognition was given on 06.05.2020, thus, at no point of time, victim can be said to be the student of Madarsa from where the certificate was obtained. He submits that during investigation these two certificates were in procured forged manner, in order to make out a case under the POCSO Act. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that all these aspects with regard to the age of the victim are subject matter of trial. So far as the offence, as alleged, is concerned, the uncle of the applicant, admits that on the date of incident, the applicant was with the victim in his house. She further submits that even the medical report also supports the case of

¶7

UKHC010075862026

¶8

2026:UHC:5512

¶9

the prosecution; since as per the medical report hymen found to be torn, which is old one and since the applicant himself admits that he was in love with the victim and for the period commencing from 20.04.2025 to 18.08.2025, 742 times they telephonically were in talking terms, which itself shows that hymen was torn only because of the present applicant. 7. In this case, in total, five persons have been implicated, however, only two persons, namely, the present applicant and the other one “Naushad” have been charge sheeted. In reference to this Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA submits that as per the statement of the victim and other witnesses, the main person is the applicant, who committed this crime, which he himself admits that he was in love with the victim. Finally, she concludes her argument by submitting that admittedly, as per the record as collected during investigation, the victim was minor and whether she is minor or major that is completely the subject matter of trial and that cannot be looked into while considering the bail. She further submits that since the offence is serious in nature that too with regard to the sexual assault with the minor, therefore, the applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. After hearing the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material collected during investigation including the medical report and the statement of the victim and the

¶10

UKHC010075862026

¶11

2026:UHC:5512

¶12

brother of t	he victim	as well as	applicant, I
do not find	any good	ground to	enlarge the
applicant application	on bail. is dismiss	Hence, ed.	the bail
Arti		(Rakesh T 07.07.2026	hapliyal, J.)

¶13

UKHC010075862026

¶14

2026:UHC:5512

Kurban v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurban 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

Jasveer Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shahane Alam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dimpal Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakhi Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Fardeen Vs State of Uttarakhand

Poonam Jakhnal and Others Vs Union of India and Another