2026:UHC:2626 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/39/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant–Wajid, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 186 of 2025, registered under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3(A)/4(2), 5(1)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, at Police Station Kotwali, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is maintainable on account of change in circumstances, which has arisen subsequent to rejection of the earlier bail application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. dated 08.02.2025 alleges that at about 6:30 p.m. on the same day, the applicant’s brother came to the informant’s house and threatened him, stating that the applicant had taken away the informant’s daughter, who thereafter could not be traced. It is contended that 2026:UHC:2626 the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated, and that no material exists to establish that he enticed, induced, or abducted the prosecutrix so as to attract the alleged offences. 7. It is further submitted that the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reveal prior acquaintance and friendly relations between the parties, thereby negating any element of force or inducement. The prosecutrix also refused medical examination, and thus no medical evidence supports the prosecution case. 8. Learned counsel additionally submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 19.02.2025, has no criminal antecedents, and is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, with no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. It is lastly urged that a material change in circumstance has arisen during trial, as the prosecutrix (PW-2) has turned hostile and denied the allegations, thereby substantially weakening the prosecution case. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application on the ground that the allegations pertain to serious offences involving a minor and attract stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. However, he fairly does not dispute that the prosecutrix, in her deposition before the trial court, has not supported the prosecution case and had refused to undergo medical examination. 11. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:2626 parties, perused the material available on record, and keeping in view the existence of a substantial change in circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecutrix (PW- 2) has not supported the prosecution case during trial and no medical evidence is available as the prosecutrix refused medical examination. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 10.04.2026 Mamta 2026:UHC:2626