SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:4132 BA 1st No.692 of 2026 Sonu ……Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Tejas Agarrwal, learned counsel for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present case arises from Bail Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail for the Applicant – Sonu, who has been accused in Case Crime/FIR No.76 of 2026, under Sections 61 (2), 70 (2) and 137 (2) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections ¾, 5 (g)/6, 16/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, at Police Station Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 4. As per the prosecution story, based on the FIR, that FIR was lodged by the victim’s father/informant on 01.04.2026, against unknown person, alleging that on 31.03.2026, her daughter aged 16 years had gone out without informing anybody and did not return home yet. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter as he was not named in the FIR. He further submits that the Applicant has no previous criminal history and the Applicant has been languishing in jail since 01.04.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is only the caretaker of the Hotel from where the victim was recovered. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Applicant that victim herself has stated that Vimal and Krishna Bhatt, mixed intoxicating substance in her cold drink and made physical relation with her in the hotel and no role of the present Applicant in the alleged offence was assigned by the victim. 7. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application of the Applicant on the ground that it is a matter of gang rape. He further submits that the Applicant is the care taker of the Hotel where offence has been committed and the Applicant used to give rooms to the unmarried couples on high rates without the requirement of I.D. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant has not made out a case for bail. 9. Accordingly, bail application is rejected in connection with the Case Crime/FIR No.76 of 2026, under Sections 61 (2), 70 (2) and 137 (2) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections ¾, 5 (g)/6, 16/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, at Police Station Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 25.05.2026 Nitesh/