No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1930 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Mintu, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 170 of 2025 under Sections 65(2), 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f) and 351(2) of BNS and Section 19/21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at P.S.- Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim alleging therein that his daughter aged about six years is studying in Angel Academy School, Bahadrabad. On 02.04.2025, she complained of pain in her private parts and when inquired, she told that applicant, who is the driver of the school bus, has inappropriately touched her private parts. Consequently, the aforesaid FIR was registered. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case; that no date or time of the commission of the alleged offence has been mentioned in the FIR; that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature; that the present case is related with the victim, who is of very tender age of 6 years, therefore, the present bail application is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considering the fact that the matter relates to the victim, who is of very tender age of 6 years and perusal of the content of the FIR and Sections of the FIR reflects the offence to be of very serious and heinous nature and, if proved in trial, could lead to imprisonment for life. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 10. The present bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.02.2026 Ujjwal