Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures BA1/ 2346/ 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Shruti Joshi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.

3. Applicant–Tarun Sarkar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0047 of 2024, (Special Sessions Trial No.315 of 2024) under Sections 376(3) I.P.C. and Section 5(j)(ii)(n)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar has sought his release on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged by the complainant/ father of the victim alleging that his daughter had been unwell for the last 12 days. On 19.01.2024, when she was taken to the hospital, the doctor advised an ultrasound, which revealed that she was pregnant. Upon being questioned, the victim disclosed that her brother-in-law, Mukul Mandal, had physical relations with her. Subsequently, after investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the present applicant.

6. Learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that in her statement under Section 183 Cr.P.C., the victim alleged that the applicant had committed sexual assault upon her, and based solely on that statement, the applicant was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid sections.

7. She would further submit that the victim was about 14 years old at the time of the incident and that her foetus was terminated with the permission of the Court. Prior to termination, the blood samples of the foetus, the applicant, and the co-accused Mukul Mandal (husband of the elder daughter of the complainant) were sent for DNA examination. The FSL report revealed that the DNA of the foetus did not match with that of the present applicant but matched with that of co-accused Mukul Mandal. Thus, it clearly establishes that the alleged offence was committed by the said co- accused, not the present applicant. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State also encloses a copy of the said FSL report.

8. Learned legal aid counsel would also submit that the applicant is in judicial custody since 04.02.2024; that he is 25 years old, and his prolonged incarceration will adversely affect his future. It is also pointed out that though there are 16 prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined so far. There is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or misusing the liberty if released on bail.

Per contra

9. , learned State Counsel opposed the bail application on the ground of the seriousness of the allegations but fairly conceded that, as per the FSL report, the DNA of the foetus does not match the present applicant and matches with co-accused Mukul Mandal. He also admitted that the