2025:UHC:3884 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. 491 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Apoorv Chauhan, 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 ‘Taufeek alias Bablu’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 13.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 0367 of 2024, P.S. Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 308(5) r/w Section 74 of BNS. 2023 r/w Section 7, 8, 11 and 12 of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which itself is evident from the FIR since there was the reference of some money transaction. He further submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and the chargesheet has already been filed and therefore there is no need of a custodial interrogation. He further submits that in absence of any electronic evidence chargesheet has been filed though the FSL report is still awaited. He further submits that even at the time of arrest the ground of arrest was not provided to the applicant and as such applicant deserves for bail. 5. On the other side, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application by submitting that after collecting all credible evidence including the Pendrive relating to the alleged video clip, the reference of which has been given in the FIR, the chargesheet has been filed and furthermore the victim, who was minor, also supports the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into 2025:UHC:3884 consideration that the victim herself supports the case of the prosecution and there are sufficient credible evidences collected by the Investigating Officer against the present applicant, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.05.2025 PR