Disposed¶4

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Jun 2025BA1/909/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application; POCSO Act Sections 5(l)/6; IPC Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n); victim's age/date of birth disputed; RTI information showing date of birth 04.10.2003 (Annexure No.9); allegation of manipulated birth certificate; amicus curiae Hardam Singh Chauhan; first bail application rejected; application to recall victim pending; direction to FTC/Special Sessions Judge, Haridwar (POCSO) to decide second bail application No. 21 of 2025 within two weeks; Uttarakhand High Court; Rakesh Thapliyal, J.; order dated 03.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the FTC/Special Sessions Judge, Haridwar (POCSO) to decide the pending second bail application No. 21 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order; bail itself was not adjudicated on merits by this Court.

Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4435

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/909/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant appears through V.C. 2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned AAG along iwht Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant-Sonu has moved this bail application in relation to First Information Report bearing FIR No.0029 of 2023 dated 15.01.2023, wherein he has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366A, 376(2)(n) of IPC read with 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, District Haridwar. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the father of the victim manipulated the birth certificate of the victim and one Advocate, namely, Hardam Singh Chauhan of District Court, Haridwar was appointed as_Amicus_ _curiae_and in such capacity, he sought an information under the RTI Act from an institution where the victim studied in the year 2003, 2004 and 2005, in response to which, the RTI information was supplied and as per the RTI information, which is annexed asAnnexure No.9, the date of birth of the victim is 04.10.2003. By referring this document, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim at the time of alleged incident was major. Apart from this, he submits that the first bail application was rejected, and, thereafter, a second bail application has been moved and not only this, even an application was moved for recalling the victim, but the same are pending. 5. Since admittedly, the second bail application has been moved by the applicant along with the application for recalling the victim, in such an eventuality, this bail application is disposed of with the direction to the FTC/Special Sessions Judge,Haridwar(POCSO)to decide thepending

¶3

2025:UHC:4435

¶4

second bail application No. 21 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2025 R.Bisht

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rakshpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Santosh Dugtal Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Bajrang Bali Construction Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt. Indra Wati Vs Mohd. Hanif

Rakhbeer Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand