No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA2 No. 107 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Ms. Manisha Bhandari and Ms. Ishita Dhaila, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. The applicant – Faizal, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 582 of 2023, under Sections 376(3), 384, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 5(l)/ 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at P.S.- Kotwali, District Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed by the coordinate bench on 09.01.2025. 5. According to the FIR, the applicant has been sexually exploiting and harassing the victim. On 12.12.2023, the victim was much upset, when her father asked her as to why she is upset, she revealed that the applicant had some photographs, he is demanding Rs. 10,000/ - for deleting them and also asking her to accompany him. The FIR records that the applicant has also been pressurizing the victim to convert her religion. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the grounds on which the second bail application has been pressed is that there are inherent contradictions in the statement of PW1, the scriber of the FIR, PW2 (father) and doctor who has been examined as PW4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the victim in her examination-in-chief has submitted that the applicant accused was taken to the Police custody on 11.12.2023, whereas FIR was lodged on 12.12.2023 at 06: 44 p.m. She has further argued that as per the prosecution story, the applicant had messaged the victim to give him Rs. 10,000/ - and he would delete the alleged photographs of the victim from his mobile gallery. This fact is also reiterated by PW4 the doctor, who examined the victim on 12.12.2023, wherein, she stated that the victim had told her that the applicant had taken her on 11.12.2023 to stadium where no physical relations were made and the applicant again messaged him that if the victim would give him Rs. 10,000/ -, he would delete the photographs of the victim. The said message was sent in the morning of 12.12.2023. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that there are further inherent contradictions in the statement of PW2 and PW1 inasmuch as the victim had submitted that the applicant was taken to the Police custody by her father and the local municipal counsellor and other neighbours on 11.12.2023, whereas the father has stated on oath that he alone went to Police Station for registering the FIR and at that time, the applicant was not in the Police custody. It is further submitted that all the prime witnesses have been examined; there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or threatening the witnesses. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 10. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. Accordingly, the present second bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ( Alok Mah r a J.) 27.11.2025 Ujjwal