2026:UHC:3265 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2/277/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Chirag Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing. 2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application is filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 143 of 2024 (Special Sessions Trial No. 75 of 2024), under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3(A)/4(ii), 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar. 4. This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim alleging that his 13-year-old daughter, who had gone missing on 21.03.2024 at about 10:00 a.m., could not be traced despite efforts. It is further alleged that the complainant later suspected that the present applicant had taken his daughter away, and when he tried to contact the 2026:UHC:3265 applicant on his mobile phone, the calls were not answered; that, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet against the present applicant. 7. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case without any credible material; that, there is an unexplained delay of about 32 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that, there is no statement of any independent witness; that, the principal and additional ground for grant of bail is that the arrest of the applicant suffers from patent illegality as the grounds of arrest were neither recorded in the arrest memo nor communicated to the applicant in writing, which is in violation of settled legal principles. 8. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 03.04.2024.; that, the applicant is a young person aged about 21 years, and his continued incarceration would seriously affect his future; that, the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. 9. On the direction of this Court, learned State counsel has produced a copy of the arrest memo, which is taken on record. The Registry is directed to paginate the same as per record. 10. A perusal of the arrest memo reveals that the grounds of arrest have neither been clearly recorded therein nor communicated to the applicant in writing. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the 2026:UHC:3265 period of incarceration, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the apparent procedural lapse regarding communication of grounds of arrest, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 12. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant, Ankit, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 29.04.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af144 9e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9 e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004 ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.30 17:21:29 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3265