2025:UHC:3796 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/20/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant Rehaan is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 04.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 0334 of 2024 registered at P.S, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 376, 506, 354(g) IPC read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and, in fact, the applicant known to victim through instagram and they were friend since March 2023 and whatever be the physical relations in between both of them same were consensual. Apart from this, he submits that even the Doctor who has conducted the medical of the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution since, she in her statement submits that no definite opinion with regard to the commission of rape can be given. He submits that in the medical report with regard to the hymen it is mentioned that membrane is absent. 5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of the arrest of the applicant no ground of arrest was given, and, as such, the applicant deserves for bail. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and since charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, at this 2025:UHC:3796 stage there is no need of custodial interrogation. 6. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. seriously opposed the bail application by saying that the victim supports the case of the prosecution and whatever be the physical relations in between the applicant and victim the same were not consensual rather it was forcible by giving threat that the photographs of the victim will go viral. Apart from this, learned A.G.A. submits that the victim at the time of the incident was minor. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the statement of the victim and also on perusal of the medical report, this Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve for bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.05.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:3796