2025:UHC:9386 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1058/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant–Annu Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 03 of 2025, (Special Sessions Trial No.53 of 2025) under Sections 351(3), 64(2)(f), 65(1) & Section 3(a), 4(2), 5(f), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Police Station P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per the prosecution case, the informant lodged an F.I.R. alleging that his minor daughter was coerced and taken by the applicant to his residence. It is alleged that the applicant, who is serving as a Social Science Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Roorkee, committed forcible sexual assault upon the victim, who is a minor. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) contain material contradictions, which raise serious doubts about the veracity of the 2025:UHC:9386 prosecution story. 7. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., the victim has denied the allegations and has been declared hostile. Other prosecution witnesses have also turned hostile. Surprisingly, even the complainant/father of the victim has denied the entire prosecution story during trial. 8. It is also submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.01.2025 and has no previous criminal history. The bail application filed before the Court below was dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2025 in a cursory manner. The applicant being a Government servant, there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or misusing the liberty if released on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel would oppose the bail application on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations. However, he fairly conceded that the charge-sheet has been filed and that both the victim and her father/the complainant have turned hostile. He also admitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 02.01.2025, and his bail application before the Court below was rejected on 29.05.2025. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court notes that the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. contain material contradictions. The victim, in her Section 183 statement, has denied the allegations and has been 2025:UHC:9386 declared hostile. Several other prosecution witnesses, including the complainant/father of the victim, have also turned hostile. 11. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 12. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.10.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:9386