SATISH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010132472026

2026:UHC:10130
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/1313/2026


Satish
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Applicants-Satish, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 70 of 2026
registered at Police Station-SIDCUL,
District Haridwar for the offences
punishable under Sections 64(2)(m),
137(2) of B.N.S. and 5(1)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual
Offence Act, 2012 has sought his
release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that initially a missing
person report was lodged by the father
of the victim and, thereafter, on
20.02.2026, the present F.I.R. was

UKHC010132472026

2026:UHC:10130
registered; that, during the course of
investigation, the victim was recovered
from the company of the present
applicant on 27.02.2026. He would
further submit that, in her statement
recorded during investigation, the
victim stated that she and the applicant
had been in a love relationship for the
preceding five to six months and since
the applicant was working in Delhi, the
victim called him to Haridwar,
whereafter they visited several places
and subsequently, upon knowing that
the police were searching for them, they
decided to return home.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that the victim was examined
before the learned trial court as PW-1,
wherein she supported the prosecution
case and stated that although she and
the applicant had been in a
relationship for the preceding five to six
months, the applicant had forcibly
committed sexual assault upon her.
8. Learned counsel would further
submit that the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in the
present case; that, in her statement
recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS, as well as during her medical
examination, the victim did not support
the prosecution version; however, in
her testimony before the learned trial
court, she took a different stand and

UKHC010132472026

2026:UHC:10130
supported the prosecution case. He
would also point out that, at the time of
the alleged incident, the victim was
approximately 16 years of age, whereas
the applicant was 28 years old; that,
that the examination and cross-
examination of the victim are yet to be
completed.
9. Learned counsel would also
submit that the applicant is
languishing in jail since 27.02.2026
and that, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to reach its logical
conclusion, thus, on the aforesaid
grounds, learned counsel prays that
the applicant may be enlarged on bail.’
10. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the prayer for
bail. However, he does not dispute the
fact that the applicant has been in
judicial custody since 27.02.2026. He
also does not dispute that, in her
statement recorded under Section 180
of the BNSS and during her medical
examination, the victim did not support
the prosecution version, whereas, in
her testimony before the learned trial
court, she has supported the
prosecution case.
11. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the victim,

UKHC010132472026

2026:UHC:10130
in her statement recorded during
investigation, as well as during her
medical examination, did not support
the prosecution version, whereas, in
her testimony before the learned trial
court, she has made allegations of
forcible sexual assault against the
applicant. The aforesaid variation in the
versions of the victim is a matter which
would require consideration during the
course of trial. Accordingly, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the applicant on bail.
12. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
13. Let the applicant be released on
bail, on his furnishing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties, each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.11.2026

Mamta