No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1276 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State. 3. The applicant – Aman, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 134 of 2025, under Sections 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S.- SIDCUL, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, FIR was lodged by father of the victim on 20.03.2025, wherein, it is alleged that on 19.03.2025, her daughter, who was 16 years of age, without informing them, went somewhere and did not return. They tried searching for her but she could not be traced and he has apprehension that applicant induced her daughter and took her away with him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is aged about 19 years and the victim is aged about 17 years. As per the statement of the victim, there was a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim. It is further submitted that in the arrest memo, no ground of arrest has been mentioned, that the victim, on her own sweet will, went with the applicant; and that statement of the victim has been recorded so there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. 8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application and would submit that the offence alleged is of a grave and heinous nature. 9. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the physical relationship, if any made between the applicant and the victim, was a consensual. 10. Insofar as the offences punishable under the provisions 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that in the arrest memo, no ground of arrest has been mentioned and even as per the statement of the victim, there was a consensual 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. 14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 15. 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 Mahra J.) 02.04.2026 Ujjwal