SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S 2026:UHC:3230 BA1 No. 571 of 2026 Dhananjay Kumar Singh ....Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant—Dhananjay Kumar Singh, S/o Suchit Singh, R/o Village Sindhri, P.S. Baliyapur, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand, presently C/o Ratiram Chauhan, R/o Village Khubbanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Section 65(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits, as a primary ground for consideration of bail, that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and has no criminal history. It is submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 09.05.2025, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 11.05.2025, and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for the delay in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that only external medical examination of the victim was conducted, as her parents refused internal examination. Learned counsel also submits that P.W.2, the mother of the victim, in her cross-examination has not fully supported the prosecution case, and P.W.1, the father of the victim, has also made statements which, according to the Applicant, cast doubt upon the prosecution story. It is further argued that even the testimony of the victim (P.W.3), as interpreted by the defence, does not support the allegations in the manner alleged by the prosecution. On these grounds, prayer for bail has been made. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the Bail Application contending that from the statement of the informant/P.W.1, the delay in lodging the FIR stands explained and that after due investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the Applicant for commission of a heinous offence. It is, therefore, submitted that the bail application is liable to be rejected. 7. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At this stage, without entering into the merits of the matter, certain circumstances weigh for consideration of bail, namely, the nature of evidence referred to by the parties, the statements brought on record during trial as pointed out by learned counsel for the Applicant, absence of criminal antecedents, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, this Court is of the view that sufficient grounds are made out for grant of bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 10. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.04.2026 Shiksha