2025:UHC:5928 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 No. 100 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol Sandhu, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this court on 04.03.2025. Now, the second bail application has moved on certain fresh grounds and one of the fresh grounds is that the Doctor, who though was made as a prosecution witness in the chargesheet and medically examined the victim, was never been interrogated by the Investigating Officer during investigation and during his examination in court he has not supported the case of the prosecution. 4. He further submits that there are different date of birth of the victim in the school documents and in such a situation the bone ossification test for determination of age of the prosecutrix has to be done since in the case of POCSO the age of the victim is crucial factor. He further submits that the applicant was taken into custody on 29.08.2024 and since then he is in jail and keeping in view of the long incarceration the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder, submits that since the victim was a graduate and as per the High School certificate the age of the victim was taken into account by the prosecution, therefore, there was no any question to go with bone ossification test for determination of the age of the victim. Further, in response to the argument that the Doctor was not interrogated by the prosecution, he submits that since the medical report is on record and the doctor was made prosecution witness, keeping in view of the fact that the victim was medically examined by the doctor and now the doctor being the prosecution witness will come in the witness 2025:UHC:5928 box during the trial. He further apprise to this court that almost all star witnesses have been examined and the trial is at a concluding stage and furthermore, the fresh ground as taken in the bail application is in fact are not the fresh ground. 6. In response to this, Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the trial is not at a concluding stage and only the prosecution witnesses have been examined and still the defence witnesses have to be examined, therefore, the trial will take some more time. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is no good ground to entertain the second bail application. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5928