No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1238 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Gaurav, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0161 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1) of BNS and Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO, registered at P.S.- Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, the complaint was filed by the brother of the victim, wherein, he has alleged that his sister, who was 16 years of age, has left the house on 04.06.2025 in the morning at about 09:00 a.m. and that they tried searching her, but she could not be traced. He lodged a missing report on 05.06.2025, in which apprehension was that the applicant has enticed her from leaving the house. After lodging of this FIR, the victim returned to her home on that day itself. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant and the victim were in love relationship and even in her statement recorded as PW-2, the victim has categorically stated that she and the applicant are in love for last one year and she, on her own sweet will, went with the applicant on several occasions in the month of June itself. She has also categorically stated that there was no physical relationship made between each other. 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 relationship between the applicant and the victim was a consensual. 10. Insofar as the offences punishable under Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO 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, 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.) 10.02.2026 Ujjwal