2025:UHC:10396 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/597/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing. 2. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. A delay condonation application along with an affidavit has been filed, praying that the delay in filing the objection be condoned. The cause shown is found sufficient. The delay in filing the objection is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application (IA 2 of 2025) is allowed. Objection is taken on record. 4. Applicant–Umashankar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0199 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 65(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 5 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that the applicant had touched the private parts of her four-year-old daughter. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the complainant had borrowed money from the applicant and, when asked to return the same, an 2025:UHC:10396 altercation ensued, leading to the lodging of a false case. It is further pointed out that PW–2, the grandmother of the victim, has admitted this fact in her testimony. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the complainant had borrowed money from the applicant and, when asked to return the same, an altercation ensued, leading to the lodging of a false case. It is further pointed out that PW–2, the grandmother of the victim, has admitted this fact in her testimony. Counsel also points out that the medical examination of the child does not reveal any internal or external injury. 9. He contends that, even if the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken at face value, the ingredients of Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act are not attracted, and at best, an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act may be made out. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 25.07.2024, is only 26 years of age, and prolonged incarceration would irreparably harm his future. His bail application before the court below was rejected on 15.02.2025. He further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time; therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant; however, he fairly admitted that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 25.07.2024 and that the trial court had rejected his bail application vide order dated 15.02.2025. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court notes that the applicant has been in 2025:UHC:10396 custody since 25.07.2024; the medical examination of the child does not show any injury; and PW-2 has admitted that there was a monetary dispute between the parties. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. 12. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 21.11.2025 Mamta