SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA3 No. 74 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Through V.C.) 1. Mr. Vaibhav Pandit, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This is third bail application moved on behalf of the applicant, Rohit Prajapati, S/o Veerpal Prajapati seeking bail in reference to FIR dated 19.03.2022, bearing FIR No. 0079 of 2022 registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun wherein the present applicant has been implicated by father of the victim for the offence punishable under Section 376(A,B) IPC read with Section5(m)/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. The first bail application was rejected on 08.06.2023 and second bail application was dismissed for non prosecution on 18.06.2025. 5. The allegation, as per the FIR, is with regard to commission of sexual assault with the victim, the daughter of the complainant who at the time of the incident was six years old. Victim’s statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 21.03.2022 wherein she stated that the present applicant committed offence with her. The applicant was arrested on 19.03.2022, and, thereafter on 15.05.2022 charge sheet has been filed and after framing of the charges, victim’s parents father and mother were examined as PW2 and PW3 and the trial court declared both of them as hostile. The victim was cross- examined after allowing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. wherein she denied that the applicant committed any offence with her. As per medical report, though, hymen is not found to be intact but there is no injury in the internal part of the body, though, Doctor was examined by the Trial Court and she also stated that the fact of commission of rape cannot be ruled out, however, hymen may be torn by other reasons. 6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant already suffered long incarceration since he is in jail w.e.f. 19.03.2022, that is for almost three and half years and the most important witnesses, who are the parents of the victim have already been declared hostile by the trial court, therefore, taking into consideration that applicant already suffered long incarceration , the applicant may be released on bail. 7. On the other side, Mr. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the bail application by submitting that at the time of the incident the victim was six years old, therefore, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. He further submits that the first bail application was rejected by a reasoned order by the coordinate Bench, however, learned State Court has not disputed this fact that the applicant already suffered long incarceration, since, he is in jail for last more than three and half years. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant has already suffered long incarceration since he is in jail w.e.f. 19.03.2022 and the trial is still going on and at the juncture where all the witnesses have already been examined by the Trial Court this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Rohit Prajapati 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. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall cooperate with the trial and will not make any attempt to come in touch with any witness in order to influence them failing which the prosecution is free to apprise this Court by moving an application. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 26.11.2025 Parul