Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4982 (UTT)

SUNNY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/602/2025 · 2025-05-22

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:4307 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/602/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant ‘Sunny’ is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 31.08.2024 bearing FIR No. 696 of 2024, Police Station – Kotwali Jwalapur, District – Haridwar wherein present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 137 (2), 96, 65 (1) BNS and under Section 3 (a) / 4 (ii), 5 (l) / 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and in fact, at the time of alleged incident, applicant was aged about 19 years and victim was aged about 16 years and both were in love with each other. He further submits that statement of the victim was recorded under Section 183 BNS in which she admitted that she was in love with the applicant. 5. Apart from this, he submits that charge- sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024 and have no previous criminal history. 6. On the other side, learned State Counsel have not disputed this fact that charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and he has no previous criminal history. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into 2025:UHC:4307 consideration that charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation and applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2024, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant ‘‘Sunny” 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.) 22.05.2025. SKS