Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16091 (UTT)

SURENDRA SINGH KHOLIYA ALIAS SONU KHOLIYA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/2314/2025 · 2025-12-04

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2314 of 2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Hardik Sah, learned counsel with Mr. Rajyavardhan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Surendra Singh Kholiya @ Sonu Kholiya, S/o Ram Singh Kholiya is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 10.10.2025, bearing FIR No. 0024 of 2025 registered at P.S. Didihat District Pithoragarh wherein the present applicant has been implicated and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 62, 64, 74, 76 of BNS 2023 read with Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2025. Apart from this, he submits that the medical report also does not support the case of the prosecution and not only this even the statement of the Doctor who conducted medical examination has also not support the case of the prosecution, as the hymen was found to be intact. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history. 5. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that based on certain CCTV footages charge sheet has been filed though the medical report does not fully support the case of the prosecution, and even, the Doctor has not support the case of the prosecution. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that charge sheet has already been filed, and, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Surendra Singh Kholiya @ Sonu Kholiya 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. 9. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.12.2025 Parul