4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that as to why the informant would have asked his daughter to go to the shop of the petitioner when he himself could have gone to buy the tablet. It is also submitted that in the FIR, it is alleged that the petitioner earlier also had molested a child, but then the issue was resolved informally, as such, the informant was knowing what kind of a person the petitioner was, as such, why he would have asked his daughter to go to the shop of the petitioner to buy the medicine. It is further submitted that the petitioner runs a grocery shop and a medicine shop is adjacent to the house of the informant, but then it is alleged that the victim instead of going to the medicine shop went to the shop of the petitioner for purchasing medicine. It is next submitted that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 67786 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 8-10-2025. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is in custody since
