2025:UHC:5568 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. 706 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M.K. Ray and Mr. Harsh Taneja, 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 ‘Abhishek @ Annu’ S/o Late Ashutosh is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 13.10.2024 bearing FIR No. 274 of 2024 P.S. Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was lodged against unknown person for missing of the daughter of the complainant from 12.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 137(2), 87 of BNS, 2023 and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act. On the next date the victim was recovered from the applicant and then the applicant was taken into custody on 14.10.2024, thereafter based on the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023 the applicant was chargesheeted. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that without collecting any credible evidence merely based on the statement of the victim the applicant has been chargesheeted. He further submits that the victim as well as the parents refused for medical examination. He submits that without any medical evidence the chargesheet has been filed. 5. Apart from this, he also submits that the victim was examined as PW1 on 08.01.2025, wherein, she completely denied the case of the prosecution and what she has stated in paragraph 3 that nothing was happened with her. Prima-facie reveals that without any cogent reason and credible evidence in a very mechanical and casual manner the chargesheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer and due to such faulty investigation the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2024. 6. No doubt the victim at the time of the alleged incident was 15 years and the applicant was 20 years 2025:UHC:5568 and both of them were infact at the tender age however merely based on the two factors i.e. the age of the victim and the statement of the victim, the applicant has been chargesheeted. 7. On the other learned A.G.A. argued that after thorough investigation the chargesheet has been filed, however, he has not dismissed this fact that there is no medical report since the victim and her parents refused for her medical examination. He further apprise to this court that the chargesheet has already been filed on 21.11.2024 and, therefore, at this juncture there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the victim herself denied completely the case of the prosecution and furthermore the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant therefore this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘Abhishek @ Annu’ 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.) 01.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5568