BA1/731/2026 of SHAKEEL AHMED Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 10 June 2026

1. Mr. V.K. Guglani, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present applicant Shakeel Ahmed, S/o Rahees Ahmed is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 13.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 32 of 2026 wherein he has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 64, 77, 78, 115(2), 329(4), 351(2) of BNS 2023 read with Section 3/5 of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act , P.S. Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the relationship in between the applicant and the complainant was consensual and they were good friends. He further submits that applicant is a matured woman, aged about 22 years and was fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which itself casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. He further submits that the relations of the applicant and the complainant were friendly which is evident from the photographs and from bare perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out. He further submits that the applicant never forced the complainant to convert her religion, as alleged, and he has not given any threat to kill and circulate any photograph and recording on the social media. He further submits that during medical examination, the informant discloses that the applicant was her friend and she used to talk with him through phone.

5. He further submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 16.02.2026 and such a long incarceration is wholly unwarranted and, as such, his presence is not required for further custodial interrogation.

6. The prosecution filed a detail counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the statement of the complainant/victim were recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS 2023 wherein she fully support the case of the prosecution. It is further stated that the victim was also medically examined and the statement of the Doctor was also recorded. In addition to this, statements of other witnesses have also been enclosed. It is further stated that complainant/victim has also provided certain whatsapp chat in between the applicant and the victim. It is further stated that there are sufficient evidence that the complainant/victim was compelled to convert her religion and investigation further reveals that complainant/victim was taken to hotel by producing Aadhar card in the name of Nisha where the applicant made physical relations without her consent. It is further stated that present applicant is continuously harassing the victim since last two years and on 26.01.2026 the applicant entered in the house of the victim and pressurized her to come with him and when she raised an objection he abused her and beaten the sister of the victim as well.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the State that the allegations are serious in nature wherein the victim was compelled to convert her religion and if the applicant is enlarged on bail there may be possibility that he will cause any harm to the victim and her sister. Learned State Counsel further argued that after collecting all credible evidence during investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the records as well as the counter affidavit and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS and the fact that the applicant was pressurizing the victim to convert her religion, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

10.06.2026 parul