SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2025:UHC:2756 BA 1st No.1531 of 2024 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, learned counsel through legal aid for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No. 281 of 2021, registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (AB) of IPC and Sections 5(m)/8 of the POCSO Act. 4. According to the FIR lodged on 13.10.2021, under Sections 363, 354(B) of IPC and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, lodged by the father of the girl (victim) alleging that on 13.10.2021, the complainant along with his seven years girl went to purchase bidi. It was further stated that the girl stood near the road while the complainant went to purchase bidi across the road. However, when the complainant came back the girl was not at the spot. During the search of his daughter along with his wife and neighbour, they heard the voice of victim from nearby bushes. They found that the victim was in half naked condition and told them that one uncle did inappropriate behaviour with her. On looking inside the bushes, they found that the applicant with no trousers and under garments standing there. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the present applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present matter, as there is no injury on the victim; no hymen was torn, as it is also evident from the medical report. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the clothes of the victim not dirty and not torn at the time of the incident. 6. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant on the ground that the victim was seven year old, and her date of birth was 30.03.2014, and she is supporting the prosecution story. He further states that there is an eye witness to the incident also. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the victim is minor aged seven year only, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Consequently, the bail application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J) 16.04.2025 Nitesh/