2025:UHC:10654 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 / 2 0 5 9 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Mohd Sabir Khan, who is in judicial custody in connection with S.S.T. No. 156 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of B.N.S. And under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The facts of the case reveal that on 22.05.2025, the mother of the victim lodged a missing report stating that her minor daughter was missing from home. The victim reportedly returned on 27.05.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and that the applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship. The families of both parties had initially agreed to the Nikah, but the elder sister of the victim opposed the union and preferred the victim to marry her brother-in-law, who is considerably older. 8. It is further submitted that the applicant left the victim’s house of her own volition and solemnized Nikah with the applicant on 24.05.2025. There is no fault on the part of the applicant, as the applicant and the victim are in a consensual love relationship. At the time of the incident, the victim was approximately 17 years, 10 months, and 22 2025:UHC:10654 days old. The victim subsequently returned to her paternal house. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the victim clearly explained that her Nikah was with her consent. Despite this, the court below, by order dated 14.10.2025, rejected the bail application of the applicant. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant, noting that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, being 17 years, 10 months, and 22 days old. However, he fairly concedes that the victim, in her statements, stated that she solemnized Nikah with the applicant. It is also noted that the bail application was earlier rejected by the court below on 14.02.2025. 10. This Court notes that, although the allegations against the applicant are indeed serious, the victim was 17 years, 7 months, and 21 days old and was mature enough to understand the pros and cons of her actions and the consequences thereof. 11. Having considered the submissions of both parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 12. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. [ ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 28.11.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:10654