2025:UHC:10571 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 1 3 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant–Saurabh Bisht, who is in judicial custody in connection with S.S.T. No. 16 of 2025 (Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0235 of 2024) under Sections 126(2), 308(2), 351(2), 64, 78(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), registered at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. As per the prosecution version, in June 2024, the victim/complainant was allegedly taken at gunpoint by the applicant. It is alleged that the applicant took her to various locations, including to the houses of his relatives, in search of accommodation, and upon being unable to secure a place, both went to a hotel where the applicant allegedly forced the victim into sexual intercourse. It is further alleged that the applicant threatened to disseminate her nude photographs. The prosecution also alleges that on 03.12.2024, the applicant intercepted the bus in which the victim was travelling and coerced her to give a false statement before the Police and the Child Welfare Committee. It is also alleged that the victim and the applicant had eloped, during which period the parents of the victim lodged a missing report. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; that the applicant and the victim were in a friendly relationship. He relies upon the supplementary affidavit and the medical examination reports. It is submitted that 2025:UHC:10571 on 21.06.2024, when the victim was produced before the Medical Officer, she clearly stated that she had left home of her own free will, stayed at the applicant's house, thereafter travelled to Mathura-Vrindavan, visited various temples and Ashrmas, and again returned to the applicant's house. It is further stated by the victim that the applicant had not made any physical relations with her during that period. In the column pertaining to "relationship with the survivor", she described the applicant as her boyfriend. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that in the subsequent medical examination dated 20.06.2025, the victim stated that she accompanied the applicant to various places including Moradabad, Punjab, Dehradun and Didihat, and that during this period the applicant had forcible sexual intercourse with her several times. However, it is argued that no internal or external injuries consistent with forcible intercourse were found during the medical examination. 8. It is further submitted that the victim is a major, her date of birth being 30.10.2006, and on the date of the alleged incident 20.06.2024, she was approximately 17 years and 7 months; thus, according to the defence, the applicability of the POCSO Act is doubtful. It is submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature; that the victim is now pursuing higher education in law in a private college and, being more educated than the applicant, who is merely a 12th pass, she has levelled false allegations to distance herself from him. It is further submitted that allegations regarding drug addiction of the applicant are unsupported; that the applicant is 26 years of age, and prolonged incarceration would irreparably affect his future prospects. 9. It is submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 20.12.2024, and his bail application was rejected by the court below on 27.02.2025; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital and there is no likelihood of his absconding, therefore, the 2025:UHC:10571 applicant is entitled for bail. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that serious allegations of sexual assault have been levelled; that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, being 17 years 7 months and 21 days old. However, he fairly concedes that the statements of the victim before the medical officers on are contradictory. He also confirms that the applicant is in judicial custody since 21.12.2024 and that the bail application was rejected by the court below on 27.02.2025. 11. The Court notes that though the allegations against the applicant are indeed serious; however, the victim has given materially contradictory statements in two separate medical examinations. The medical evidence does not indicate injuries suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse and the relationship between the parties appears to have pre-existing elements of familiarity. As the victim was 17 years, 7 months, and 21 days old, she was mature enough to understand the pros and cons of her actions. Her own statement shows that she went with the applicant to several places on different occasions but never raised any alarm for help. 12. Having considered the submissions made by 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. 13. Accordingly, the first bail application is allowed. 14. 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.) 27.11.2025 Mamta