HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 735 of 2023 Karan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.292 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2) IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. According to the FIR, the applicant enticed the daughter of the complainant and took her away from her legal guardianship. The daughter of the complainant stole certain articles from her house. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR is delayed by two days; no jewellery was recovered from the daughter of the complainant; applicant has no criminal history; there are no eye witness to the alleged incident; the applicant is in custody since 19.05.2022. 2 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in Criminal Appeal No.1184 of 2019, Ashik Ramjan Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that, “............though the sexual intercourse was consensual, but the girl was minor and based on this aspect, the appellant, in my consideration opinion, cannot suffer the sentence, in case of a consensual sexual act. 5. Learned State Counsel has submitted that the victim was minor on the date of incident, and as per law, the consent of a minor cannot be taken account of. As per the statement of the victim, it is evident that the accused forcefully sexually assaulted with aggravated penetrative assault. 6. I do not agree with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, and, in my opinion, the ruling on which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon, does not apply in the present case. The facts of the case are quite different. 7. Having considered, this Court does not see any new ground, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 3 8. The bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 10.01.2025 R. Uniyal