2026:UHC:2256 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2408/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Kuldeep, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0365 of 2025, registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(d)/4(2)/5B/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Kotwali, District Haridwar has sought his release on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the alleged victim stating that on 25.04.2025 his minor daughter left the house without informing any family member. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant suspected that the present applicant had taken away his daughter. During the course of investigation, the victim was subsequently recovered in the company of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submits that after recovery, the victim was sent for medical examination, however, the informant declined to give consent for conducting the medical examination of 2026:UHC:2256 the victim. It is further contended that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in her statement recorded before the court concerned, has categorically stated that the applicant did not establish any physical relationship with her. On the strength of the said statements, it is argued that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly those relating to sexual assault under the provisions of the POCSO Act, are not prima facie made out; that, there is no reliable documentary proof regarding the age of the victim and there exists inconsistency regarding the same during investigation. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case; that, both the applicant and the victim are of tender age and the applicant himself is about 19 years of age; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail; that, the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature and relate to offences under the POCSO Act. However, learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that the victim, who has been examined before the trial court as PW-1, has 2026:UHC:2256 stated in her testimony that the applicant did not establish any physical relationship with her. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the material placed before the Court, it transpires that the prosecution case is primarily based on the allegation that the victim had left her house and was later recovered in the company of the applicant. It is not in dispute that the complainant declined to permit the medical examination of the victim. Furthermore, the victim herself, both during investigation and in her statement before the trial court, has stated that no physical relationship was established between her and the applicant. 10. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has been able to make out a case for grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.03.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:2256