2025:UHC:6073 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. 865 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. K.S. Rautela and Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Pankaj Poddar’ S/o Shri Ramdass Poddar is praying for bail in relation to First Information Report dated 07.03.2025 bearing Case Crime No. 0072 of 2025 P.S. Haldwani, District Nainital, wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 r/w/ Sections 5(j)(ii) and 6/51 of POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. K.S. Rautela submits that in respect of same victim earlier the mother lodged the FIR on 29.06.2022 bearing FIR No. 0329 of 2022 at P.S. Haldwani and subsequently the applicant was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 of IPC r/w Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act in which after facing the trial the applicant was acquitted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 05.09.2023 in S.S.T. No. 65 of 2022. Thereafter, again the brother of the victim lodged the FIR on 07.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0072 of 2025 and raised almost similar allegations giving reference of an incident of eight months back. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution the victim is pregnant and the child is from the applicant but there is no DNA test. 5. Apart from this, a reference of pendrive is also given recorded by mobile phone from instagram account ‘Ajay_verma_ji_9x’. Consequently, the State was directed to file their objection and now the objection has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State that DNA test has not been carried out as the victim has not given birth to the child. 6. Apart from this, he also apprise this fact that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such 2025:UHC:6073 there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant, this court is of the view that the 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 ‘Pankaj Poddar’ 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.) 14.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:6073