No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1505 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Dilip Kumar, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 224 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, 2012, registered at P.S.- SIDCUL, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, an FIR was lodged on 09.05.2025 by the brother of the victim, whereby, it is alleged that the victim was 17 years of age at the time of incident. On 07.05.2025, at about 03:00 p.m., she went to a shop to buy cold drink. When the victim did not return for a long, the family started searching for her. The neighbours told that a person named Dilip, who is a resident of Bihar, persuaded the victim and took her in his motorcycle. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the statement of the victim, Dilip, who is their neighbour, works in SIDCUL factory, where her mother is also working. On 07.05.2025, when she went to a shop to buy cold drink, Dilip gave lift to her in his motorcycle by telling her that he would drop her to SIDCUL, but, instead, he persuaded her and they went to Bihar. They stayed there in several rented accommodations, where physical relations were made between them. She further stated that when Dilip came to know about the FIR being lodged by her family, he took her back to Haridwar on 13.05.2025, where the Police arrested them. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that physical relation was made between the applicant and the victim, with their consent. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. 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 about 17 years of age at the time of incident. 9. Insofar as the offences punishable under Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 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 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.) 20.11.2025 Ujjwal