2025:UHC:2904 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/63/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shivam Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned counsel for the State. 3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. This is a second bail application. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Present applicant is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 28.08.2024 bearing FIR No. 0713 of 2024, registered at Police Station – Kotwali, District – Haridwar, wherein applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 376 (3), 506 IPC and under Section 3 (a) / 4 (2) of the POCSO Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, which is evident from the fact that in the FIR two other persons were also named namely Neeraj and Ragini Upadhyay and the FIR was lodged by the victim herself. After investigation, two other co-accused named in the FIR were exonerated from the charge of commission of rape, however, charge sheet has been filed against them for the offences punishable under Section 11 / 12 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that there is contradiction in the statements of victim. In the FIR, victim raised allegations against Neeraj and Ragini Upadhyay for commission of rape, however, in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNS, 2023, she confined her allegation to the present applicant. 7. Apart from this, he submits that most important aspect of matter is that there is delay of one year in lodging the FIR. 8. Apart from this, he submits that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the 2025:UHC:2904 applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that after collecting credible evidence, charge sheet has been filed but he has not disputed this fact that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history. 10. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, has adopted the arguments advanced by learned State Counsel. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that since the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant has no previous criminal history, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant “Ram Kishore Bairwa” be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 22.04.2025. SKS 2025:UHC:2904