2025:UHC:6533 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. 1260 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant–Nitesh S/o Omkar Kashyap is seeking regular bail in relation to first information report dated 20.04.2025, bearing FIR No. 0040 of 2025, Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, wherein three persons, namely, Bantu, Rahul and Dinesh have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 123 read with Section 70(2) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(g), 5j(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and though the applicant is not named in the FIR, but in the contents of the FIR, there is reference of the applicant that the applicant have a friendship with the victim and both of them met on 15.06.2024, and, thereafter, they developed their relation and the victim was two months’ pregnant. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR, the allegations have been alleged against three persons, who are named in the FIR and all of them are the real brothers and the maternal uncles of the victim. The allegations, as alleged, against three maternal uncles for commission of rape, prima facie, appears to be though very serious in nature, but also doubtful. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there is no direct allegation against the present applicant, and, 2025:UHC:6533 furthermore, there is delay of two months in the FIR and charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.04.2025, and as such, be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other side, Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Additional Advocate General for the State apprise to this Court that on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the three persons who are named in the FIR including the present applicant. She also argued that admittedly the victim at the time of incident was minor i.e.17 years’ old. 7. 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 the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not at all required, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the present bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, namely, “Nitesh,” 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.) 24.07.2025 R.Bisht 2025:UHC:6533