2025:UHC:10804 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No.1587 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Amit Kapri and Ms. Geetanjali Dhami, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This first bail application has been moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R./ Case Crime No.05 of 2025, under Section 64(m), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 5(j)(ii)(1) & Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh. 3. The First Information Report was lodged by the uncle of the victim, alleging that on 01.02.2025, he had taken the victim, who is stated to be of unsound mental condition, to the Child Welfare Protection Office, Pithoragarh. During the course of the medical examination conducted therein, it was revealed that the victim was approximately four months pregnant. I t was further averred that the victim is a minor, aged about 16 years, and that some unknown person had committed sexual assault upon her. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was recorded under due procedure, wherein she specifically named the present applicant along with two other persons as the individuals responsible for the sexual assault. The victim was thereafter again subjected to medical examination, which indicated that she was approximately three and a half months pregnant. The said pregnancy was medically terminated pursuant to the permission and directions issued by the competent court under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the foetus was preserved. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. It is 2025:UHC:10804 contended that although the applicant hails from the same village as the victim, he has been residing at Sheraghat for the past one year and had no occasion to come in contact with the victim during this period. Learned counsel further submits that, on the application moved by the accused persons, the D.N.A. of the foetus was sent for comparison with the D.N.A. profiles of the applicant and the other two co-accused. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, none of the said accused, including the applicant, has been found to be the biological father of the foetus. It is argued that the applicant is a young person aged about 22 years, and if he continues to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period, his career and future prospects will suffer irreparable harm. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, and in the event of his release, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and shall furnish adequate and reliable sureties to the satisfaction of this Court. 5. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage. 7. The bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant, namely, Himanshu Kumar Alias Hemu be released on bail, on executing personal bond by each one of them and furnishing two reliable sureties by each one of them, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 04.12.2025 Arpan