BA1/509/2025 on 28 March, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/509/2025 on 28 March, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                                  2025:UHC:2317
                Office N ot e s,
              r e por t s, or de r s
              or pr oce e dings
SL.
       Date     or dir e ct ions                        COURT'S OR JUD GE'S ORD ERS
N o.
              a nd Re gist r a r 's
                  or de r w it h
                  Signa t ur e s
                                       BA1 / 5 0 9 / 2 0 2 5
                                       Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Ms. Pushpa Joshi, learned Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, learned counsel for
the applicant.

2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant
Government Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Sain,
learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Present applicant is praying for regular bail
in relation to FIR dated 04.02.2025 bearing FIR No.
0045 of 2025, registered at Police Station – Kiccha,
District – Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences
punishable under Section 137 (2), 64, 87 BNS, 2003
and under Section 3 / 4 of the POCSO Act.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated and there is delay of 9 days in lodging
the FIR. She further submits that the applicant has
no concerned with the alleged offence and victim
herself left the house, which is evident from her
statement. She further submits that applicant was
arrested after two months of the FIR and there is
no direct evidence against him.

5. On the previous date, State Counsel was
directed to get instructions in the matter and
today, learned AGA for the State has placed before
this Court the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 183 BNSS.

6. On perusal of the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it appears that
victim denied that she went with the present
applicant or even, she knew the present applicant.
As per the statement, victim and her mother
refused to give their consent for internal medical
examination of victim.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties
and further taking into consideration the fact that
the victim herself denied for medical examination,
this Court is of the view that applicant deserves
for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is
2025:UHC:2317
allowed.

8. Let the applicant “Badal Tomar” be released
on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
28.03.2025
SKS