Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/896/2026 of RAVI RAM ALIAS RAKESH RAM Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 19 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/896/2026 Ravi Ram Alias Rakesh Ram --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr.
UKHC010088922026
2026:UHC:5105
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/896/2026
Ravi Ram Alias Rakesh Ram
--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. Mr. Suryakant Maithani, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Ravi Ram @ Rakesh Ram’ is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 09.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 05 of 2026 P.S. Gairsain, District Chamoli, wherein, he has been implicated by his wife for the offences punishable under sections 323, 376 r/w section 5j(ii), 51 and 6 of POCSO Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present applicant is innocent, which is evident from the FIR itself since in the FIR the respondent/complainant, who is the wife, admits that she married with the applicant on 16.06.2022 in Shivalaya Temple at Gairsain and thereafter from this marriage one female child was born on 25.04.2023, however, she shown her age in the FIR as 17 years to make out the case under the POCSO Act. He submits that as per the FIR the marriage took place on 16.06.2022 and thereafter a female child was born on 25.04.2023 and the FIR has been lodged on 09.02.2026 and at that time the daughter of the applicant was more than 3 years. He submits that lodging of FIR appears to be an abuse of process of law since the same was lodged by the wife and surprisingly in the present case the I.O. concerned in a very casual manner submits the charge-sheet.
UKHC010088922026
2026:UHC:5105
5. He submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2026 and since now the charge-sheet has already been filed and, therefore, there is no need of further interrogation and, as such, the applicant be released on bail.
6. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. Sandeep Sharma have not disputed this fact that the FIR itself reveals that the complainant married with the applicant on 16.06.2022 and from their marriage one child was born on 25.04.2023 and he also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed.
7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the allegations as alleged in the FIR, which was lodged by the wife wherein she married with the applicant and having one female child from this marriage, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant ‘Ravi Ram @ Rakesh Ram’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 19.06.2026 PR