Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/885/2026 of LUVKUSH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 16 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/885/2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Arushi Batra, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A.
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/885/2026
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Ms. Arushi Batra, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Present applicant Luvkush S/o Guruprasad is praying for regular bail in reference to FIR dated 30.07.2025, bearing FIR No. 0341 of 2025 Police Station Gangnahar District Haridwar wherein the applicant has been implicated for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 65(1) of BNS 2023 read with Section 3(a), 4(2), 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and he is real MAMA (uncle) of the victim and now charge sheet has been filed and the trial has been commenced and PW1 victim was examined by the Trial Court on 04.02.2026 and she specifically denied about physical relation with the present applicant and she disclose the name of one another person, namely, Monu but surprisingly he has not been charge sheeted. She further argued that mother of the victim was also examined as PW5 by the Trial Court on 02.05.2026 wherein she disclosed the age of victim about 21 years. It is further argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2025, and, since the trial has been commenced therefore taking into consideration the period which he has served in the custody he be released on bail
5. On the other side, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State have not disputed that the trial has already been commenced and victim and her mother have also been examined and not fully support the prosecution and the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2025.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2025 and trial has been commenced and the most material witnesses victim and her mother have already been examined 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 ‘Luvkush’ 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 trial court proceeding on each and every date without seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.06.2026 Parul