2025:UHC:1554 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. 308 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The present applicant ‘Mursleen alias Kala’ is in judicial custody in relation to Case Crime No. 217 of 2024 registered pursuant to FIR dated 02.05.2024 P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar. 5. The three persons were implicated namely Mursleen, Ayyub and Sahil for the offences punishable under Sections 354(C), 376(d) of IPC r/w Section 3A, 4(ii), 13,14, 16 and 17 of POCSO Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and now the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and such be released on bail. 7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complainant (father of the victim) as well as the victim were declared hostile by the Trial Court. He further submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history. He further submits that since the victim and victim’s father were declared hostile by the Trial Court, which clearly reveals that in a very casual and mechanical manner the chargesheet has been filed. He further submits that this is a case of false implication, which is evident from the fact that three persons were named in the FIR, however after investigation one of the accused Ayyub has been exonerated and the chargesheet has been filed only against the two persons including the present applicant, therefore since this is a case of false implication the applicant deserves for bail. 8. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, 2025:UHC:1554 learned Brief Holder for the State, placed before this court the written instruction, which contains the other documents, which are part of the investigation pursuant to which the chargesheet was filed. 9. I peruse the recovery memo as placed by the learned State counsel. 10. Learned State counsel also submits that after thorough investigation and after collecting all credible evidences the chargesheet has been filed. 11. Learned counsel Mr. Bilal Ahmed, who is in fact appearing for the mother of the victim, seriously and vehemently opposed the bail application by saying that in fact there is some family dispute of her with her husband and therefore an attempt was made to win over the victim (daughter) and her husband and during entire investigation no attempt was made to record the statement of the mother of the victim, who is in fact the natural guardian. 12. As per the written instructions as placed by the learned State counsel before this court there is a reference in the recovery memo that a pendrive containing a video was handed over by one Naushad, cousin brother of the complainant and Naushad is also one of the witness of the chargesheet. 13. Apart from this, he also submits that there are other evidences with regard to the age of the victim and according to this the victim was minor. 14. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the mother of the victim, also placed before this court one another FIR lodged against the present applicant arising from the same FIR, which was lodged on 29.04.2024 registered as FIR No. 0208 of 2024 P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant has also been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 354 r/w Section 67b of I.T Act. This FIR is also placed on record. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the mother of the victim and after gone through the written instructions including the other documents placed before this court by the learned Brief Holder, this 2025:UHC:1554 court is of the view that the offences as alleged appears to be very serious in nature, therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any relief. 16. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.03.2025 PR