Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2065/2025 of AMAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 July 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2065/2025 Aman --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted
UKHC010171252025
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/2065/2025
Aman
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Nipush Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present applicant “Aman, son of Naushad”, is praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 30.07.2025 bearing FIR No. 281 of 2025 registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Dehradun wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 137 (2), 64 (2) (m), 351 (2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and under Section 5 (l) / 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that victim herself stated before the Doctor that she knew the applicant since 9 -10 months and she admits about her romantic relations with him under Section 183 of the BNSS. She further argued that no doubt, victim was minor at the time of alleged incident but she was more than 17 years old and applicant was 21 years old. She has also enclosed certain photograph in order to establish that both were in love. She further submits that though the medical evidence does not support the applicant’s case, as her hymen was found to be torn but there is no injury mark on the body of the victim. She further submits that charge sheet has already been filed and applicant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2025 and there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant has not UKHC010171252025
criminal antecedents.
5. On the other side, learned State Counsel submits that after thorough investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the victim supports the prosecution case, though simultaneously, he admits about love relationship of victim with the applicant. He further admits that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2025 and applicant has no criminal antecedents.
6. After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of the victim as well as medical report and the photograph as enclosed with the application and the fact that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2025 and he has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant “Aman, son of Naushad” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
9. It is made clear that applicant after being released on bail shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.07.2026 SKS