2025:UHC:6874 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1100/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ankurit Raj David, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Pinkal, S/o Prem Lal is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 27.03.2025, bearing FIR No. 92 of 2025, registered at P.S. Transit Camp District U.S. Nagar wherein the present applicant was implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 376, 504 and 506 IPC, in which on completion of investigation the applicant has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is delay of 2 years in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation of the delay, and, furthermore, applicant is 25 years old whereas the victim is 32 years old and there was love affair in between both of them and both of them were known to each other. He further submits that only on the pretext of false marriage, the FIR has been lodged. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and in this particular case charge sheet has already been filed on 23.05.2025, and, as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2025. 5. On the other side, Mr. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State has not disputed this fact that the charge sheet 2025:UHC:6874 has already been filed after collecting all credible evidence, and, as of now there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the fact that there is major age difference in between the applicant and the victim and the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2025, and furthermore charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant “Pinkal” be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.08.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:6874