HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ANKIT MISTRY V/S STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CASE

NAINITAL, India, July 9 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment on June 18:

BA1 No. 621 of 2026

Ankit Mistry --Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand --Respondent

HON'BLE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

1. Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Present applicant Ankit Mistry is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 02.07.2025 bearing FIR No. 194 of 2025, P.S. Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) of BNS read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the FIR itself wherein it is clearly mentioned that since the last two years the applicant was known to the victim, but on the false pretext of marriage the FIR has now been lodged. He further submits that the same complainant who lodged the FIR against the applicant also lodged another FIR on 30.07.2023 implicating one Samrat Kanjilal for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act in the same Police Station, i.e., P.S. Transit Camp, wherein the same victim was examined before the Trial Court as PW-1 and she disclosed her age as 19 years in S.S.T. No. 876 of 2023, State V/S Samrat Kanjilal, and the accused Samrat Kanjilal was acquitted on 28.08.2025. He submits that the present FIR has been lodged during the pendency of S.S.T. No. 876 of 2023, alleging therein that at the time of the incident the victim was 17 years old, though in S.S.T. No. 876 of 2023, on 02.01.2024, she disclosed her age as 19 years. Even otherwise, he submits that the FIR itself reveals that only on the false pretext of marriage the applicant has been implicated.

He submits that the charge sheet has already been filed and the trial has commenced and the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.07.2025 and since the trial has commenced there is no need for further custodial interrogation of the applicant, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the age of the victim has been determined by the I.O. during investigation on the basis of the school leaving certificate and during investigation it was revealed that the applicant is already married and this fact was not disclosed by him to the victim. However, he has not disputed that the charge sheet has already been filed, the trial has commenced and the applicant has no criminal antecedent.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the charge sheet has been filed, the trial has commenced, the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.07.2025 and no further custodial interrogation is required, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail.

7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant, Ankit Mistry, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

18.06.2026

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.