SHUBHAM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:3426
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
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

2026:UHC:3426
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

2026:UHC:3426
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 co-
accused, 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

2026:UHC:3426
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'