Aakash Haldar v. Presence

years, seeking enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 0039 of 2023 and Special Sessions Trial No. 306/2023, registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 376(3) and 506 IPC, and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.02.2023.

2. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, as the first bail application No. 908 of 2024 "Aakash Haldar Versus State of Uttarakhand" was dismissed on 16.04.2025 by this Court after detailed consideration of all aspects of the case.

3. As per the State's case, the complainant, father of the victim, lodged an FIR on 03.02.2023 alleging that his minor daughter, aged about 14 years, was residing with her maternal grandfather at MahendranagarShaktifarm. It is alleged that the applicant enticed her and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, threatening her with dire consequences if she disclosed the acts to anyone.

4. Heard Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. Second Bail Application No. 149 of 2025-----Aakash Haldar vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that both the applicant and prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship since 2022. It is argued that the prosecutrix and applicant were studying in the same school and developed a romantic relationship through social media platforms. Counsel contended that when this relationship came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix's family, they disapproved and lodged a false FIR against the applicant.

6. Attention was drawn to alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including variations in the dates of the incident (July 2022 vs. October 2022) and delay in lodging the FIR. Counsel also highlighted that the FSL report could not detect semen and blood, and that DNA analysis of the accused's samples did not yield amplifiable DNA suitable for analysis.

7. It was further submitted that the prosecutrix's mother appeared as DW-2 and denied the prosecution story, and that the prosecutrix has since married another person, indicating her majority age. Counsel argued that the entire case is based solely on the statement of the prosecutrix given after 6-7 months of the alleged incident.

8. Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the victim, a minor, has consistently maintained her allegations of sexual assault and threats by the applicant. The school records confirm her minority status, having been born on 25.05.2008. The medical examination indicated physical evidence corroborating the allegations.

9. It was submitted that the claim of consensual relationship cannot override the legal position that a minor cannot give valid consent for sexual acts. The FSL report's inability to detect certain evidence does not negate the other substantial evidence on record. The pendency of compounding application is legally irrelevant as offences under POCSO Act are non-compoundable.

10. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record, including the previous bail order dated 16.04.2025, victim's statements, medical reports, witness testimonies, and school records, this Court finds that no Second Bail Application No. 149 of 2025-----Aakash Haldar vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. fresh grounds or changed circumstances have been presented to warrant reconsideration of the earlier decision.

11. The alleged offences are grave in nature, involving sexual assault on a minor, which attracts stringent punishment under the IPC and POCSO Act. The legislative intent behind such enactments is to provide special protection to children, and courts are duty-bound to enforce such provisions strictly.

12. The victim's consistent statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as her testimony before the trial court, continue to lend credence to the State's case. Her unambiguous statements regarding sexual assault and threats by the applicant remain the cornerstone of the prosecution's case.

13. The arguments regarding consensual relationship, even if accepted, cannot alter the legal position that the consent of a minor is legally invalid and irrelevant in cases involving sexual offences. The minority of the victim is established through school records and cannot be disputed.

14. The alleged inconsistencies in dates and delay in FIR registration have already been considered and rejected in the previous bail order. Such delays in reporting sexual offences, particularly by minors, are not uncommon and cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution's case.

15. The FSL report's inconclusive findings regarding certain biological evidence do not exonerate the applicant, as the prosecution's case is based on multiple pieces of evidence including the victim's testimony, medical examination findings, and witness statements.

16. The trial is progressing, and several prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Granting bail at this stage, without any substantial change in circumstances since the previous application, may compromise the integrity of the ongoing proceedings and potentially influence witnesses.

17. This Court notes that second and successive bail applications should be entertained only when there are changed circumstances or fresh grounds that were not available or considered in the previous application. In the present case, no such compelling changed circumstances have been demonstrated. Second Bail Application No. 149 of 2025-----Aakash Haldar vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and considering that no fresh grounds or changed circumstances have been established since the dismissal of the first bail application, the gravity of the offences, the age of the victim, and the evidentiary material supporting the State's case, this Court does not find this to be a fit case for grant of bail. The second bail application filed by the applicant, Aakash Haldar, is hereby rejected. Dated: 25.06.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21 822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E6 7B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Ashish Naithani, J. Second Bail Application No. 149 of 2025-----Aakash Haldar vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.