Uttarakhand High Court
BA2/83/2025 of JAVESH ALIAS DAVESH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 2 April 2026
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.83 of 2025 Javesh @ Davesh ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.83 of 2025
Javesh @ Davesh
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. Pradeep Chamiyal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody FIR No. 420 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on 06.01.2024.
4. According to the FIR, the victim a young girl of 15 years was found missing from her house from 12.12.202, at 11-12 in the midnight. A search was made, but she could not be traced. A suspicion was raised on the applicant that it is he, who was in touch with the victim and he might have enticed her. The victim was subsequently recovered. She told that she was in relationship with the applicant and they left the house on 12.12.2022. They went to Uttar Pradesh but in the meanwhile, the applicant got a telephonic call from the police, therefore, they returned.
2
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, in fact, the applicant and the victim, both were in romantic relationship, which has been admitted by the victim in her statement during investigation and during trial also.
5. Learned State Counsel admits these facts. But, he submits that according to the prosecution, the victim was child. She has stated that the applicant established physical relations with her.
6. In the cases of Mahesh Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2634, Faizan Wahid Baig Vs. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MHOR/62774/2022, Vijaylakshmi and another Vs. State and another, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 317, Shri John Franklin Shylla Vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Megh 303 and Ashik Ramjali Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1390, the Courts have either granted bail or quashed the proceedings or acquitted the accused in the cases like instant one.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 02.04.2026 Jitendra