High CourtsSingle Bench

Pawan Singh @ Neeraj Thakur vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 9 May 2025 · Citation: (2025) 05 UK CK 0724

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Mahra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 64, 351(2) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - 3, 4 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 2544 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 395 words

Alok Mahra, J

1.

Applicant Pawan Singh @ Neeraj Thakur, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/ FIR No. 453 of 2024, under Sections 351 (2) & 64 BNS and under Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act, P. S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3.

As per the FIR, on 06.09.2024, at about 1:30 pm, the daughter of the complainant, a minor aged about 14 years, and his wife along with two sons were sleeping at the home, meanwhile, the applicant, after consuming alcohol, entered the house of the victim and forcibly took her to his room through the roof and raped her. Thereafter, the complainant’s wife reached the house of the applicant, in which applicant was caught red handed.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that, applicant has no criminal history and; he is languishing in jail since 10.09.2024; that, the FIR is delayed by 2 days; that, as per medical report there are no injuries in the external or internal body of the victim. She would further submit that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

5.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would further submit that as per statement of the victim, she has gone to the house of the applicant on her own will; that, there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged commission of the crime and no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars for indefinite time as the trial court is likely to take considerable time.

6.

Learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the bail application, however, he would admit that the trial is likely to take considerable time.

7.

In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

8.

The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.