Uttarakhand High Court Stays Demolition of Nainital Minor Rape Accused’s House Amid Communal Tensions

New Delhi | December 16, 2025 The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the demolition of the house of a 73-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Nainital earlier this year. The court’s decision comes amid claims that authorities have been acting with malice and undue influence from local pressure groups, selectively targeting the accused’s property. The case, which occurred in April, sparked widespread communal tensions and protests in Nainital. The accused allegedly lured the girl with Rs 200 while she was returning home from the market and assaulted her at knifepoint. Following the incident, an FIR was registered against him under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the SC-ST Act. Days after the alleged crime, local pressure groups in Nainital created unrest by shouting communal slogans, threatening to demolish the accused’s house, and attempting to set it on fire. On May 1, the Nagar Palika Parishad issued a notice alleging encroachment on government or forest land, demanding a response within three days. The accused was in jail at the time, and his wife challenged the notice, highlighting that it violated Supreme Court directions regarding demolition procedures. The notice was subsequently withdrawn. Despite this, the District Level Development Authority (DLDA) issued an ex-parte demolition notice on May 7. The accused’s wife submitted objections via registered post and through legal representation, but the DLDA proceeded without considering her objections. The special POCSO court in Haldwani denied bail to the accused on May 20, citing the gravity of the offence and the risk of evidence tampering. Further demolition notices were issued in July and November, and appeals filed by the accused’s wife were dismissed without proper hearing. On December 9, the DDLA secretary visited the house and orally warned the family to vacate within three days or face forced demolition. In her plea before the Uttarakhand High Court, the accused’s wife argued that the authorities were acting with malice under pressure from various groups, violating her family’s constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. She claimed the house was not built on government land and that no action was taken against neighboring houses on the same land. The petition emphasized that the family was being unfairly targeted due to communal bias and local hostility. The High Court, with Chief Justice G. Narender and Justice Alok Mahra presiding, stayed the demolition until the end of the winter season and listed the matter for further hearing on January 5, 2026. The court also allowed the state government to file a counter-affidavit within two weeks. Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, representing the petitioner, highlighted that Supreme Court directions regarding demolition were not being followed and urged the court to ensure due process is observed. The stay provides temporary relief to the accused’s family while the matter continues through proper legal channels, underscoring the court’s role in preventing unlawful and biased actions. This case has drawn attention to the challenges of balancing law enforcement with the protection of individual rights amid communal tensions, particularly in sensitive criminal cases. Uttarakhand High Court Stays Demolition of Nainital Minor Rape Accused’s House Amid Communal Tensions The Uttarakhand High Court has stayed the demolition of the house of a 73-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in Nainital earlier this year. The court’s decision follows claims that authorities acted with malice and were influenced by local pressure groups, selectively targeting the accused’s property. The case, which took place in April, sparked communal tensions and protests in Nainital. The accused allegedly lured the girl with money while she was returning from the market and assaulted her. An FIR was filed under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, and the SC-ST Act. Soon after, local pressure groups threatened to vandalise the accused’s house. In May, the Nagar Palika Parishad issued a notice alleging encroachment on government land. The accused was in jail, and his wife challenged the notice, which was later withdrawn. Despite this, the District Level Development Authority issued ex-parte demolition notices, ignoring objections submitted by the family. Appeals filed by the wife were also dismissed without proper hearing. On December 9, the DDLA secretary visited the house and warned the family to vacate within three days or face forced demolition. The accused’s wife approached the High Court, claiming the family was being unfairly targeted due to communal hostility and that the house was not built on government land. She argued that this selective action violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The High Court, with Chief Justice G. Narender and Justice Alok Mahra presiding, stayed the demolition until the end of the winter season. The matter is listed for further hearing on January 5, 2026, and the state has been allowed to file a counter-affidavit. This stay provides temporary relief to the family while ensuring due process is followed, highlighting the court’s role in protecting rights amid sensitive and high-profile cases.