SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA2 No. 305 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Through V.C.) 1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Rehaan’ S/o Mannan moved this second bail application seeking bail in reference to First Information Report dated 04.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 334 of 2024 P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 376, 506, 354(g) of IPC r/w Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. The first bail application was rejected on 13.05.2025 by a detailed order after perusing the medical report. Now, the second bail application has been moved. 4. On perusal of the second bail application it reveals that no fresh ground has been taken by the applicant, however, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2024 and on the charge- sheet the Special Court took cognizance on 12.12.2024 but uptill date the trial has not been concluded. He submits that in terms of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act the trial has to be expedited as far as possible within one year from the date of cognizance. He submits that there are in total 12 witnesses and uptill date only two witnesses have been examined. He submits that in terms of Section 35(2) since still ten witnesses have to be examined, therefore, there is no any possibility that the trial can be expedited. 5. On the other side Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder submits that though in terms of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act the trial has to be expedited as far as possible within one year from the date of cognizance of the charge-sheet and though the cognizance was taken on 12.12.2024 and two important witnesses have already been examined and the one year has not been expired so far, therefore, in such an eventuality, the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived particularly when Section 35 (2) mandates to expedite the trial as far as possible. 6. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant does not deserve for bail particularly when no fresh ground has not been taken in the instant second bail application and so far as the mandate of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act it mandates that the trial has to be expedited as far as possible. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this court if of the view that though the cognizance was taken on 12.12.2024 and two star witnesses have already been examined but no benefit in terms of Section 35(2) of POCSO Act can be given to the present applicant taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant second bail application is rejected, however, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 28.11.2025 PR