Facts
The applicant, the stepfather of an 8-year-old victim, was accused of sexual assault. An FIR (No. 0080/2025) was registered at Police Station Kaladhungi, District Nainital.
Source reference: para. 2, 3The victim’s statements were recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S. 2023, where she supported the prosecution's case, followed by a medical examination.
Source reference: para. 3The applicant has been in judicial custody since July 31, 2025.
Source reference: para. 4During the trial, the victim was examined as P.W.-1 and reiterated her allegations on oath.
Source reference: para. 5The applicant moved this first bail application claiming false implication due to matrimonial discord.
Source reference: para. 4Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the evidence of the minor victim recorded during the trial.
Source reference: para. 6, 7Law Applied
Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, which define and penalize aggravated sexual assault.
Source reference: para. 2Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023 regarding the weight of recorded statements.
Source reference: para. 3, 5The gravity of the offence, the age of the victim, and the potential for witness tampering are paramount considerations in bail matters involving heinous crimes.
Source reference: para. 6Reasoning
The court evaluated the applicant's defense of matrimonial discord but determined that such claims are matters for trial and cannot be conclusively examined at the bail stage.
Source reference: para. 6The court found substantial prima facie material against the applicant, specifically noting that the victim's statements remained consistent from the investigative stage (B.N.S.S. Sec. 180/183) through to her oral testimony as P.W.-1 before the trial court.
Source reference: para. 5, 6The court emphasized the heinousness of the offence and the tender age (8 years) of the victim. It reasoned that because the victim had already materially supported the prosecution version on oath, the risk of influencing witnesses and the severity of the potential punishment necessitated continued custodial protection.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The court answered the issue in the negative, holding that no ground for bail was made out given the gravity of the accusations and the corroborative evidence provided by the minor victim.
The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected the bail application.
Source reference: para. 8Original Court PDF
RAJESH ALIAS RAJESH SINGHvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in