JITENDRA KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010076442026

2026:UHC:9613
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/755/2026

Jitendra Kumar
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Raja Rastogi, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr.
Himanshu Sain, Brief Holders for the
State.
3. Applicant- Jitenda Kumar, who is
in judicial custody in connection with
Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0062 of 2025
registered at Police Station-Selaqui,
District Dehradun for the offences
punishable under Sections 115, 351(2),
352 of the B.N.S. and Section 5(m)/6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that, as per the
prosecution case, the applicant
allegedly sexually assaulted his minor
son, i.e., the victim, and when the
complainant attempted to apprehend
the applicant, he abused and pushed
the complainant before fleeing from the
spot. He would further submit that the

UKHC010076442026

2026:UHC:9613
applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is contended that
there are material contradictions in the
statements of the victim recorded
before the court below on 17.06.2025
and 10.10.2025; that, in his statement
dated 17.06.2025, the victim stated
that the applicant had sexually
assaulted him in a room situated in his
father's dairy and fled when his father,
i.e., the complainant, reached the spot,
however, in his subsequent statement
dated 10.10.2025, the victim stated
that only his father and mother were
present and no other person was
present at the place of the incident;
that, there are contradictions in the
statements of the victim's father and
mother.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that the medical examination of
the victim was conducted after a delay
of eight days from the date of the
alleged incident; that, no independent
person was present at the spot and that
the clothes worn by the victim at the
time of the alleged incident were not
handed over to the police. He would
further submit that the applicant has
been in judicial custody since
07.06.2025 and that the trial is not
likely to conclude in the near future,
therefore, the applicant is entitled for
bail.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the prayer for
bail. She would submit that the victim
is a minor aged about four years and,
therefore, the alleged contradictions in
his statements ought to be considered

UKHC010076442026

2026:UHC:9613
in the light of his tender age. She would
further submit that the DNA
examination conducted during the
investigation has established a match
between the DNA profile obtained from
the exhibits collected from the place of
the incident and the blood sample of
the applicant; that, the exhibits
included the mattress cover and pieces
of cloth collected from the spot, which
were marked as Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6.
As per the DNA examination report, the
DNA profiles obtained from the
aforesaid exhibits were found to be
consistent with a single male human
source and matched the DNA profile
obtained from the applicant's blood
sample.
8. She would further submit that the
DNA profile obtained from the anal
slide of the victim also matched the
applicant's DNA profile. Accordingly,
learned State counsel submits that, in
view of the scientific evidence available
on record, the applicant is not entitled
to bail.
9. 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
is a minor aged about four years and
that the prosecution relies upon the
DNA examination report, which, as
submitted by learned State counsel,
indicates a match between the DNA
profiles obtained from the relevant
exhibits and the blood sample of the
applicant. At this stage, the aforesaid
scientific evidence weighs against the

UKHC010076442026

2026:UHC:9613
applicant's prayer for bail.
9. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly
the nature of the allegations and the
scientific evidence relied upon by the
prosecution, this Court is of the view
that the applicant has failed to make
out a case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the first bail application is
rejected. It is, however, clarified that
the observations made herein are
confined to the adjudication of the
present bail application and shall not
be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
10. The report of the F.S.L. is taken on
record. Registry is directed to paginate
the same, as per record.


(Alok Mahra J.)
26.10.2026
Mamta

MAMTA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.10.27 11:48:29 +05'30'