No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1289 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Manish Saini, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 101 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 65(1) of BNS and Section 3(a), 4(2), 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- Kotwali Roorkee, 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 23.03.2025 by the father of the victim, whereby, it is alleged that her daughter was 16 years of age. On 22.03.2025, she went to market to buy some grocery. She telephoned to her father by some unknown mobile number saying that she would return in few hours, but, she did not return. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as per the statement of the victim, she went to Saharanpur with the accused to celebrate her birthday on her own sweet will and after celebrating her birthday in the evening, when she was returning back to her home, she telephoned her father that she would be little late. When in reply, her father, told her, not to come home, she again went to Saharanpur, where, physical relation was made between the applicant and the victim, with their consent. Learned counsel would further submit that applicant is 20 years old. 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 16 years of age and applicant was about 20 years of age at the time of incident. 9. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 3(a), 4(2), 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