NEELAM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010170172026
2026:UHC:10354
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
Signatures
BA1/1616/2026
Neelam
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned
counsel for the applicant through video
conferencing.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned
A.G.A. along with Mr. J.P. Kandpal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. The present bail application has
been moved by the applicant, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 148 of 2026,
registered at Police Station Rajpur,
District Dehradun, for the offences
punishable under Sections 64 read with
Section 3(5), 87 and 143 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
Sections 16/17 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned State Counsel and
perused the material available on record.
4. The complainant lodged a missing
report on 05.07.2026, alleging therein
that her minor daughter, aged about
15½ years, had been missing since
04.07.2026. Upon investigation, the
victim was recovered on 01.08.2026.
During the course of investigation, it
emerged that the victim had left her
house and gone along with co-accused
Pinky and Lavi to Muzaffarnagar, where
they allegedly forced her to marry one
Manish. It further came to light during
the investigation that the victim was
UKHC010170172026
2026:UHC:10354
allegedly sold by co-accused Pinky and
Lavi to Manish for a sum of ₹ 1,50,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant, who is also
the mother of the victim and the
complainant in the present case, has
been implicated in the matter on the
basis of the alleged confessional
statement of the co-accused, according
to which, out of the total amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-, a sum of ₹ 80,000/- was
allegedly paid to the applicant. It is
contended that there is no independent
evidence on record to establish that any
such amount was paid to the applicant
by the co-accused. It is further
submitted that the alleged statement of
the co-accused, insofar as it relates to
the payment of money to the applicant,
is not corroborated by any other material
collected during the investigation.
6. Learned counsel further submits
that even in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the victim
has categorically stated that she had left
her house and thereafter went along
with co-accused Pinky and Lavi, who
allegedly forced her to marry Manish. It
is also submitted that co-accused Pinky
and Lavi have already been enlarged on
bail by the learned Trial Court. In the
absence of any independent evidence
establishing the alleged payment of
₹ 80,000/- to the present applicant,
learned counsel submits that the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel
has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.
8. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that
the allegation against the applicant
UKHC010170172026
2026:UHC:10354
regarding receipt of ₹ 80,000/- out of the
alleged sale consideration of ₹ 1,50,000/-
is primarily based on the statement of
the co-accused. No independent material
or evidence has been brought to the
notice of this Court to substantiate the
alleged payment of the said amount to
the applicant. Further, this Court has
also taken into consideration the
statement of the victim recorded under
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, as well as the fact
that co-accused Pinky and Lavi have
already been enlarged on bail by the
learned Trial Court. Having regard to the
overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered view
that the applicant has made out a case
for grant of bail.
9. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court is inclined to enlarge the
applicant on bail. The bail application is,
accordingly, allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on
bail upon executing a personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall regularly attend
the proceedings before the learned Trial
Court and shall not seek any
unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade such person from disclosing
such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India
without obtaining prior permission of the
learned Trial Court.
11. It is clarified that, in the event of
UKHC010170172026
2026:UHC:10354
misuse of the liberty of bail or violation
of any of the conditions imposed
hereinabove, the complainant/informant
shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application before the competent Court
seeking cancellation of the applicant's
bail.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
06-11-2026
SB