UKHC010120592026 2026:UHC:7379 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1214/2026 Pankaj Sha --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant Pankaj Sha, S/o Pundev Sha is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 07.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0004 of 2026 P.S. Lalkuan District Nainital wherein the present applicant is implicated by the mother of the victim for the offences punishable under Sections 308(3), 64 of BNS 2023 read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant and the victim were known to each other through Instagram and victim at the time of the alleged incident was 17 years old and the applicant was 22 years old and both of them were of tender age. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record with regard to any sexual assault since the mother of the victim refused to go with the medical examination of victim. Apart from this, there is no evidence with regard to the video and obscene photos and there is no evidence with regard to the demand of extortion. She further argued that charge sheet has already UKHC010120592026 2026:UHC:7379 been filed and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no substantial progress n the trial and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2026. 5. On the other side Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State admits that there is no medical examination of the victim since her mother refused to go with the medical examination of victim and further there is no evidence with regard to the video as alleged in the FIR, however, she submits that since the victim was admittedly minor at the time of the incident and based on her statement charge sheet has been filed. 6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the mother of the victim refused to go with the medical examination of the victim and further there is no evidence with regard to the video as alleged in the FIR, and charge sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 7. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Pankaj Sha 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. 9. It is made clear that after being released on bail the applicant shall join the trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking unnecessary adjournment and shall not give any threat to the victim and her family members. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 17.08.2026 Parul