No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1662 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Bhavesh Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 19 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 351(1), 64(1) and 87 of B.N.S. and 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- Bhimtal, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, a missing report was lodged by the father of the victim on 21.04.2025. Subsequently, the victim was recovered from the house of the applicant and thereafter the statements were recorded and on that basis, the applicant was arrested. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant as well as the victim, both were studying in the same school and they studied together from class 9th till class 12th. Thereafter, after passing class 12th, the victim got admission in D.S.B. Degree College, Nainital; that on the basis of the statement of the victim, the applicant was arrested and chargesheet was filed under Sections 137(2), 351, 64, 87 of BNS and 3/4 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that even the medical report does not support the prosecution story as no spermatozoa was found and neither any internal or external injury was found. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application contending that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was a consensual and that the victim was more than 17 years of age and applicant was 19 years of age at the time of incident. 9. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (a special enactment) are concerned, it is pertinent to observe that although the provisions of the said statute are stringent in nature, such rigour does not preclude the Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail, where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant, in order to secure the ends of justice. 10. The material on record indicates that the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her parental home without informing her parents and accompanied the applicant of her own volition. It is, no doubt, true that under the purview of the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix is legally a minor; however, the facts of the present case reveal that she was possessed of sufficient understanding, maturity, and discernment to comprehend the nature and consequences of her actions, and that she had voluntarily joined the company of the applicant. 11. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts that, in cases involving young offenders and consensual relationships between adolescents, a liberal approach may be warranted at the stage of bail, so as to prevent the regressive and adverse influences of prolonged incarceration and to further the principle of best interest of both the parties involved. 12. Having considered the rival submissions and under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the apparent consensual nature of the relationship between the applicant and the victim, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 13. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. 14. 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. (Alok Mahra J.) 17.10.2025 Ujjwal