No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1581 of 2025 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Subhash Chand Burman, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The applicant – Himanshu, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/ Case Crime No. 0047 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l)/ 6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- Buggawala, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on 24.05.2024 under Section 363 of IPC, wherein, he has alleged that on 24.05.2024, his daughter namely Sapna aged about 17 years has ran away from home with one Himanshu. They tried to search for them, but, they could not be found. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim is above 17 years of age; the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has herself stated that she went with the applicant on her own sweet will as she was harassed by her family. From her house, first they went to Haridwar and thereafter to Punjab and several times physical relations were also made between them; and, when they were left with no money, they tried to return back to their home, but, they were arrested by the Police at Saharanpur. 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 21 year of age and the victim was above 17 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.) 28.11.2025 Ujjwal