2025:UHC:5344 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. 1048 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel, appears through V.C and Mr. Bhuwanesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Sameer S/o Shri Haseen is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 02.01.2025 bearing FIR No.0005 of 2025, Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 64, 65(1), 137(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 3A/4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2025 and even as per the prosecution, the applicant was in friendship with the victim and they known to each other. He further submits that though the victim was minor at the time of incident and 14 years’ old and the applicant was though major but at a tender age. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. Apart from this, he submits that after the incident, almost after five months, the victim died. 6. On the previous date, learned counsel for the applicant, a reference was made of a judgment rendered by Allahabad High Court 2025:UHC:5344 in the case of “Jodhi alias Ayodhya versus State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2014 SCC OnLine ALL 13227 and by referring this judgement, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the victim died therefore, the evidence of the victim could not be subjected to cross examination. Apart from this, he also gives reference of Section 27 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 7. On the previous date, the State counsel was directed to get instruction in the matter. Today, the State counsel, apprise to this Court that though the charge-sheet has been filed but still charge has not yet been framed, however, he has not disputed this fact since that the charge-sheet has been filed, and as such, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 8. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the charge-sheet 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. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant, namely, Sameer, 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. 11. It is made clear that after being released on bail, the applicant shall appear on each and every date before the trial Court and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 25.06.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:5344