Uttarakhand High Court

BA1/865/2025 on 23 May, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                  BA1 No.865 of 2025
                                  Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. K.S. Rautela, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Manoj Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant appears through V.C.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present applicant is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 07.03.2025 bearing FIR No.0072 of 2025, Police Station- Haldwani, District Nainital, wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 351(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6/51 of POCSO Act.

4. This FIR, as it appears, was lodged on a written complaint of 27.02.2025 and after receiving the written complaint dated 27.02.2025, the FIR was registered on 07.03.2025, almost after 10 days. Apart from this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that earlier an FIR was lodged by the mother of the present victim, which was registered as Case Crime NO.329 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3), 506 IPC read with Section 5(l)/6 POCSO Act, in which the applicant faced the trial, and, thereafter, the Special Judge, POCSO by judgment and order dated 05.09.2023, acquitted the present applicant. He further submits that after acquittal, again the FIR has been lodged, wherein a reference of the incident of eight months' back has been given.

5. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA on instruction from the concerned I.O submits that the victim, at present, is pregnant from the present applicant, but there is no any evidence on this since no DNA was carried out.

6. The question is if a person who was acquitted from a charge, which was alleged in respect of the same victim, how after acquittal, he came in touch with the victim.

7. Apart from this, a Pendrive containing videocliping recorded by phone from instagram account "Ajay_verma_ji_9x" is placed on record and by referring this pendrive, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this pendrive reveals that one Ajay Verma is the husband of the victim.

8. Let the State may file response positively within 10 days, particularly in reference of two aspects, one if the applicant was acquitted then how he came in touch with the victim, and, furthermore, the response about Annexure No.-5, which the pendrive containing videoclip

9. Apart from this, they may also file the response regarding the voter list, which is appended at Annexure No.7, wherein, at page No.96, there is a reference of the victim by showing her age as 19 years. If the age of the victim is actually 19 years, then as to why, the FIR has been registered under the POCSO Act.

10. Put up this matter on 09.06.2025.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23.05.2025 R.Bisht