2025:UHC:6758 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.988 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari and Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsels for the applicant. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant–Titu Yadav S/o Sooresh is praying for regular bail in relation to first information report dated 03.08.2024 bearing FIR No.0299 of 2024, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) of the BNS, 2023. On completion of investigation the applicant has been charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(5), 65(1), 87, 137(1), 351(1) of BNS, 2023 read with Sections 3(A)/4(ii), 5(l)(j)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the brother of the victim lodged the FIR with an ulterior purpose and motive, which is evident from the fact that the victim- the sister of the complainant, was major at the time of incident, but without any authentic document, the complainant deliberately shown her age as 14 years. 5. He also submits that not only this even the applicant married with the victim on 19.07.2024, which was solemnized in Shri Shiv Mandir Nirman Samiti, Roshnabad, District Haridwar and their marriage is also duly registered on 27.07.2024 by the Registrar, Compulsory Registration of Marriages, Haridwar. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that this fact was very well in the knowledge of the complainant that the 2025:UHC:6758 applicant married with the sister of the complainant on 19.07.2024, but deliberately in order to harass the applicant, the FIR has been lodged thereafter on 03.08.2024. 7. He also submits that mentioning the age of the victim as 14 years in the FIR is also appears to be incorrect since when the victim was examined in the Court as PW-3, her age was shown as 20 years. 8. He further submits that not only this, even the victim-the real sister of the complainant during her examination in the Court admits that she married with the applicant and their marriage is also registered. 9. Learned counsels for the applicant further argued that in this case the concerned Investigating Officer, in a very casual and mechanical manner, filed the charge-sheet based on the statement of the complainant only by ignoring this fact that the complainant deliberately given wrong age of the victim in the FIR, and, furthermore, victim married with the applicant on 19.07.2024. 10. It is further argued that even the concerned Investigating Officer have not examined that the marriage of the applicant with the victim was duly registered by the Registrar and without examining this, he has filed the charge-sheet. 11. He also submits that the present applicant was arrested on 10.08.2024, and, thereafter, the charge-sheet has been filed in a very mechanical and casual manner without any material and now the trial has been commenced and keeping in view of the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2024 that too on the FIR which was lodged by the brother of the victim with incorrect facts, therefore the applicant be enlarged on bail. 12. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, 2025:UHC:6758 learned Brief Holder for the State has not disputed this fact that when the PW-3 the victim was examined in the Court her age was shown as 20 years and there is no any material with regard to the age of the victim except one School Leaving Certificate, on which learned counsel for the applicant creates doubt. 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the applicant married with the victim on 19.07.2024, their marriage was also registered on 27.07.2024 and during her examination her age was also shown as 20 years, and, furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been filed and applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2024, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant, namely, Titu Yadav, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 31.07.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:6758