JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Parmanand Puri is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 113 of 2022, under Sections 376, 354, 323, 506 IPC, and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the victim was a young girl, when the applicant would visit her. Subsequently, the applicant established physical relations with her on multiple occasions. The victim was still a child, but she could not reveal it to her family members. Thereafter, the applicant got the victim married to a person, who was idiot. The applicant alongwith one Rakesh Kumar Gupta wanted to grab the property of the victim; they sold her shop also; bank loan was taken; Rakesh Kumar Gupta and the bank manager also sexually exploited the victim. The victim has stated during trial that the applicant was trying to molest the young daughter of the victim also in the year 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit it is a false case. The victim starts the story from the year 1999. She is a grownup woman of 35 years of age. She had taken loan from the bank. When she defaulted in making repayment, she levelled allegations against the bank manager also. Her husband sold the shop. She has also levelled allegations against various other persons. FIR has been lodged in the year 2022. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that apart from what had happened to the victim since 1999, in her statement, the victim had also stated that in the year 2021, the applicant also tried to molest the daughter of the victim, who was 7 years of age then. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. On the last occasion, the Court had required the learned State counsel to get the transcript of the conversation, which was allegedly recorded by the victim, as told by her in para 12 of her statement. 8. 7. On the last occasion, the Court had required the learned State counsel to get the transcript of the conversation, which was allegedly recorded by the victim, as told by her in para 12 of her statement. 8. Learned State counsel would submit that the audio recording is not clear, so the transcript could not be made. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim is 35 years of age. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.