2025:UHC:2629 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/30/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Manoj Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharath Bisht, learned Assistant Government Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned counsel for the State. 3. Present applicant is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 25.08.2024 bearing FIR No. 0013 of 2024, registered at Police Station – Baitalghat, District – Nainital wherein applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 65 (2) 2023 read with Section 5 (jha) (da) / 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a senior citizen and aged about 70 years. He further submits that allegations, as alleged in the FIR, appears to be a concocted story and no prudent person can presume that such an offence as alleged in the FIR was committed by the applicant, who is aged about 70 years and victim as per prosecution is 2 year old. He further submits that without collecting credible evidence charge-sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner. He further submits that since the charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and applicant is languishing in jail since 25.08.2024. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel fairly submits that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, bail application is allowed. 2025:UHC:2629 7. Let the applicant “Bishan Ram” be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 08.04.2025. SKS