2025:UHC:2146 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. 231 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Manoj Saini @ Patram’ S/o Kailash Saini is praying for bail in relation to Case Crime No. 595 of 2024 arising out of First Information Report dated 29.07.2024, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Haridwar, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 351(2)of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(a)/4(ii) of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he has no previous criminal history and is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024. He further submits that there are great contradictions on the allegations as alleged in the FIR, which was lodged by the mother of the victim, and on the statement of the victim recorded. 5. Apart from this, he submits that on the basis of incomplete investigation the chargesheet has been filed since the blood sample of the applicant and the prosecutrix, which were sent for FSL and UPT test sent for laboratory report were still awaited despite this chargesheet has been filed. 6. Apart from this, he further submits that the doctor also opined on the basis of the medical report that no definite opinion can be given for the sexual assault. 7. On the other side, learned A.G.A. submits on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 the chargesheet has been filed, however he could not give any answer that how without FSL report and the Laboratory report the chargesheet has been filed. He also has 2025:UHC:2146 not disputed this fact that the applicant have no previous criminal history. 8. Apart from this, it is undisputed fact that now the chargesheet has been filed, meaning thereby there is no need of custodial interrogation. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed, therefore there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant ‘Manoj Saini @ Patram’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.03.2025 PR 2025:UHC:2146