SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010159092025 BA1/1899/2025 Ankit Yadav --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Rangoli Purohit, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The present applicant ‘Ankit Yadav’ S/o Shri Ramkumar Yadav is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 19.12.2024 bearing FIR No. 685 of 2024 P.S. Sidcul, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 64, 123, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 r/w section 67(a) of I.T. Act. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been chargesheeted only because of the report of the Cyber Cell with regard to one video clip collected from his Instagram but the electronic instrument was not sent for the forensic analysis and there is no scientific evidence. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2025 and there are as many as 13 prosecution witnesses but uptill date only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined, therefore, there is no any possibility that the trial would be expedited soon. With regard to the offence punishable under section 376 he submits that as per medical report the hymen is found to be torn but there is no any such evidence that the applicant was involved in this crime. 7. On the other side, learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Narendra Bali submits that there are sufficient evidences against the applicant, however, he has not disputed that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.03.2025 and trial is still going on and uptill date only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined. 8. Learned A.G.A. Mrs. Rangoli Purohit submits that though there are the evidences collected from the Cyber Cell, however, electronic device was not sent for the FSL because the victim has not provided the video clip, which she stated that the video which got viral was also sent to her brother. She submits that all these factual aspects at this juncture has no relevance and is completely a subject matter of trial; however, she has not disputed that the present applicant is languishing in jail since last more than one year. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the present applicant is languishing in jail since last more than one year and there is no substantial progress in the trial and admittedly the applicant has no previous criminal history since there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant ‘Ankit Yadav’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court subject to the condition that the applicant shall join the Trial Court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.08.2026 PR