2025:UHC:10811 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 9 0 6 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 2. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the complainant. 3. A delay condonation application along with an affidavit has been filed, praying that the delay in filing objection be condoned. The cause shown is found sufficient. The delay in filing objection is hereby condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. Objection is taken on record. 4. Applicant–Jahangeer, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 279 of 2025, under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the B.N.S., registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the victim alleging that his sister, aged about 20 years, used to purchase grocery items from the shop of the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant allured her and established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, and that the applicant’s family has now fixed his marriage elsewhere. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the victim were acquainted as they are neighbours and eventually became friends, and that both of them, being young—applicant aged 22 years and the victim aged 20 years—developed mutual affection. It is argued that there is no question of false promise of marriage, and assuming that any physical relationship was 2025:UHC:10811 established, the same was consensual. It is further submitted that the applicant’s marriage was never fixed, and that false allegations have been levelled to exert pressure on the applicant. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that, the applicant has been in custody since 18.09.2025; that, the applicant has no criminal history; that, his earlier bail application was rejected on 06.10.2025; that, he is only 20 years of age and prolonged incarceration would adversely affect his future; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that he be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State counsels as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, they admit that the applicant is in custody since 18.09.2025 and that his earlier bail application was rejected on 06.10.2025. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court observes that a recurring trend has been noticed wherein adult prosecutrix, after consensual physical relationships arising out of love affairs, subsequently initiate criminal proceedings by lodging FIRs alleging coercion or exploitation. In the present case, the applicant has made out a fit case for the grant of bail. 11. Accordingly, the first 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 Mahr a, J.) 04.12.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10811