Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Uttarakhand/
  4. 2024/
  5. December

Rakesh Kumar Alias Rajendra Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand

Decided on 31 December 2024• Citation: BA1/2502/2024• High Court of Uttarakhand
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                   HIGH   COURT    OF  UTTARAKHAND        AT  NAINITAL              
                          First Bail Application No.2502  of 2024                   
                  Rakesh  Kumar  alias Rajendra Kumar   …..….....Applicant          
                                           Versus                                   
                  State of Uttarakhand                   ….….Respondent             
                  Present:-                                                         
                       Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the applicant.                 
                       Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the      
                       State.                                                       
                  Hon’ble  Ravindra   Maithani,  J. (Oral)                          
                            The  applicant is in judicial custody in Sessions       
                  Trial No.38 of 2024 in connection with FIR No.46 of 2024,         
                  dated 08.04.2024,  under Section 376  IPC, Police Station         
                  Kaladungi, District Nainital. He has sought his release on        
                  bail.                                                             
                  2.        Heard   learned counsel  for the  parties and           
                  perused  the record.                                              
                  3.        The  victim aged  22 years, left her home  on           
                  22.03.2024   at 11:00  in  the night  without informing           
                  anyone  in the family. Subsequently, she was  recovered.          
                  According  to the statement of the victim recorded under          
                  Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the         
                  Code”), she was in contact with one Preetam of Delhi. She         

                                              2                                     
                  visited Delhi. Preetam kept the  victim with one Baldev           
                  Singh,  who   established physical  relations with  her.          
                  Thereafter, he got the victim married  with one Suresh,           
                  who  according to the prosecution is the applicant.               
                  4.        Learned   counsel  for  the  applicant  would           
                  submit  that the applicant is not named  in the FIR; the          
                  victim  has not  stated about  any  role of him  in her           
                  statement, recorded under  Section 161 of the Code; after         
                  the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 164 of        
                  the Code  when  further statement was recorded there she          
                  revealed  the  name   of the  applicant,  which  is not           
                  believable.                                                       
                  5.        The  factual narration is not disputed by  the          
                  learned State counsel. In addition to it, it is submitted         
                  that  the victim has  also named   the applicant  as an           
                  offender in her statement in the court.                           
                  6.        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.                                              
                  7.        The bail application is allowed.                        

                                              3                                     
                  8.        Let the applicant 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.                                                  
                                                   (Ravindra Maithani, J.)          
                                                        31.12.2024                  
                  Sanjay                                                            
                         Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA                         
                   SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
                         2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe,
                         postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,                         
                         serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699,
                         cn=SANJAY KANOJIA                                          
                         Date: 2025.01.02 11:41:32 +05'30'