No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1271 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Tumul K. Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Suhail Husain @ Seebu, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 10 of 2024, under Sections 376, 452, 323 IPC, Section 140(3) of BNS and Section 5/ 6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- Baluwakot, District Pithoragarh, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, a missing report was lodged by the father of the victim on 06.08.2024 at 20: 06 hours, wherein, it was alleged that his minor daughter went to Pithoragarh on 04.08.2024, but, she is not now traceable and he is apprehending that some mishap could occur with her. The victim was recovered on the next day i.e. on 07.08.2024. Thereafter her statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. She was medically examined on 08.08.2024, wherein, in her statement given to the doctor, she has alleged that the accused and the victim made physical relationship three- four times and the accused used to threaten her. Thereafter, her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which she has stated that the accused and the victim were in love with each other for the last two-three years and in this relationship, they made physical relationship also. The last physical relationship was made in the month of June, 2024 and this physical relationship was made in the house of the victim. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that since the applicant and the victim belong to different communities, due to the pressure of the society, this FIR has been lodged; they were in love relationship and even as per the statement of the victim, the last physical relationship was made in the month of June, 2024 while missing report was lodged on 06.08.2024. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit 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 applicant was 24 year of age and the victim was above 16 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 Mah r a J.) 04.12.2025 Ujjwal