2025:UHC:10409 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1337/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. A.M. Saklani along with Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani and Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Misc. Application (IA 1 of 2025) is allowed. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. 4. Applicant–Monu Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0230 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87 and 84 of the B.N.S. and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Initially, a missing report was lodged by the mother of the victim on 16.05.2025, alleging that her daughter, aged about 17 years, had been missing from her house since 27.04.2025. It was further alleged that the informant had searched for her daughter at the residences of her relatives, but she could not be traced. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 19 days; that initially the F.I.R. was registered only 2025:UHC:10409 under Section 140(3) B.N.S., but thereafter Sections 137(2), 84, 87 of the B.N.S. and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act were added; and that the police have not recovered the victim from the custody of the applicant. 8. Learned counsel further submits that there are discrepancies regarding the age of the victim; that in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., the victim stated that she and the applicant were in a love relationship and, therefore, even if it is presumed that any physical relationship took place, the same was consensual in nature; that the applicant is 24 years old and the victim is 17 years old, both being of tender age. He further submits that the victim refused to undergo medical examination and that the trial is likely to take considerable time; hence, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. He, however, submits that the Principal of the Higher Secondary School, Milk certified that the date of birth of the victim is 01.01.2008, which shows that the victim is 17 years old. He fairly admits that the F.I.R. was lodged with delay and that in her statement under Section 183 B.N.S., the victim stated that she was in a love relationship with the applicant. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court notes that although the allegations are serious, the F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 19 days. The victim stated under Section 183 B.N.S. that she was in a love relationship with the applicant. She is about 17 years old, was not recovered from the applicant’s custody, and also refused medical examination. Considering these 2025:UHC:10409 factors, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case. 11. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 21.11.2025 Mamta