UKHC010085952026 2026:UHC:5178 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/864/2026 Anshul Jagwan --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shivam Rana, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. B. C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. 3. Present applicant “Anshul Jagwan, son of Hayat Singh Jagwan” is praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 18.04.2026 bearing FIR No. 0020 of 2026 lodged for the offences punishable under Section 351 (2), 351 (3), 64 (1), BNS, 2023 read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station – Augustyamuni, District – Rudraprayag. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and charge sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner and not only this, even the medical report does not support the prosecution case. He further submits that the FIR does not disclose the exact date of alleged occurrence and the prosecution case is based upon oral allegation. He further submits that in fact, parents of the victim earlier lodged a missing complaint about missing of victim and this fact has been suppressed by the victim / complainant in the FIR. He further submits that the actual date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2008 and on the date of alleged incident, she was more than 18 UKHC010085952026 2026:UHC:5178 years. In support of her age, he has enclosed the document issued from Government Primary Health Centre as Annexure No. 03. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 19.04.2026 and as per the medical report, there is no external injury or sign of sexual assault on the body of the victim. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel have not disputed this fact that there is no sign of external injury or sexual assault on the body of the victim and there is no reference in the medical report about “hymen”. 6. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that as per medical report, there is no sign of sexual assault on the body of the victim, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant “Anshul Jagwan, son of Hayat Singh Jagwan” be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.06.2026 SKS