2026:UHC:481 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 / 2 5 2 / 2 0 2 5 Hon 'ble Rak esh Th apliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Kashif, S/ o Sakeel seeking bail in relation to FIR dated 01.02.2025, bearing FIR/ Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, registered at P.S. Kiccha, District U.S. Nagar wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of the POCSO Act. 4. First bail application was rejected on 11.08.2025. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that after rejection of the first bail application, the prosecutrix has been examined and not only this father of the prosecutrix was also examined on 21.11.2025. He further submits that the prosecutrix stated that after seeing photographs she realized that rape was committed with her. Apart from this, he submits that the Doctor has not given any definite opinion about the commission of rape and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS 2023 stated that she knows the applicant since last more than one and half years, since, the applicant is the friend of her elder brother. He also pointed out that as per the FIR incident was one and half year old and the FIR was lodged when the prosecutrix became major. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025. 2026:UHC:481 6. On the other side, Mr. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State submits that there are ample evidence, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix and there are as many as in total six prosecution witnesses out of which three prosecution witnesses have been examined. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the FIR has been lodged in reference to a incident which is one and half year old and furthermore the applicant is of tender age of 22 years and the FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix after she became major and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.03.2025, 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 bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Kashif 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. 10. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournment and will not make any attempt to come in the contact with the prosecutrix and her family members and will ensure his presence on the first day of every month in the nearest police station and simultaneously the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial without being influenced with the observation as made above. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) 1 0 .0 1 .2 0 2 6 Parul 2026:UHC:481