Guru Prasad @ Yash vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Mahra, J

Applicant Guru Prasad @ Yash, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/ FIR No.92 of 2025, under Sections 333, 351(2), 64(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(A), 4(2) of POCSO Act, registered at P. S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.

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

As per the prosecution story, on 19.01.2025, the First Information Report was lodged by the informant/complainant alleging that the applicant entered the house of the victim at about 10:00 p.m. Despite her resistance, the applicant allegedly committed rape upon her and threatened to kill her.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the age of the victim is approximately 15 years, whereas the applicant was 21 years old at the time of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that no such incident took place and that due to personal differences between the two families, a false FIR has been lodged against the applicant. The FIR is also delayed, while the alleged incident took place on 17.02.2025, the FIR was lodged only on 12.03.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that though the victim was medically examined, the doctor did not express any opinion regarding sexual assault. The medical examination was conducted after 24 days of the alleged incident; therefore, no samples were preserved or sent for FSL examination. Moreover, the victim, in her statement before the Trial Court, has been declared hostile and has denied all the allegations made against the applicant in the complaint.

Per contra, learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application but submits that the age of the victim is 15 years at the time of the incident. However, even her being declared hostile does not entirely demolish the prosecution case. Be that as it may, there appears to be no substantial evidence presently available to implicate the applicant.

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.

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.