2025:UHC:8102 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/967/2023 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Rawat and Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Applicant- Danish, who is in judicial custody in connection Special Session Trial NO. 92 of 2022 (Case Crime No. 488 of 2022) under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(a)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 has sought his release on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. As per the prosecution case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 18.05.2022 by the complainant alleging therewith that on 13.04.2022 the applicant entered into the house of the victim, where she was alone with her minor sister and brother, in the night at about 12.00 A.M. and forcefully raped the victim and threatened her that if she told about the incident, the applicant would kill her. It is also stated that when the victim told about the said incident to the her mother then on the family settlement, the nikanama was solemnized on 16.05.2022 and thereafter when the victim family called the applicant for registration of marriage, the applicant and his family members demanded dowry of ₹5 lacs and bike, when the family members of the victim refused for the same, the applicant and his family refused for registration of nikha/marriage. 2025:UHC:8102 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that, initially, the F.I.R. was registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, based on the statement of the Principal of Government Primary School, the age of the victim was recorded as 16 years and 4 months at the time of the alleged incident, following which offences under the POCSO Act were added against the applicant; that, as per the statement of the victim, she was 18 years old at the time of the incident and that she herself stated that she never went to school. It is also contended that the date of birth mentioned in the school records is 05.12.2005. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submits that according to other documents, namely the certificate issued by the Anganwadi worker based on the records of the Family Register (Privaar Register), the date of birth of the victim is 10.05.2003. It is further submitted that the Nikah has already been solemnized between the applicant and the victim, and the same was signed by both parties in a peaceful manner. The counsel contends that due to personal differences between the families of the applicant and the victim, a scuffle occurred, which prevented the registration of the marriage. 9. It is also submitted that the applicant and his family are now willing to take the victim to their residence, as she is legally wedded to the applicant. The counsel further contends that the F.I.R. was registered with an inordinate delay of approximately one month, as the incident of rape is stated to have occurred on 13.04.2022, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 18.05.2022; that, the applicant had earlier filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Judge 2025:UHC:8102 (POCSO), Haridwar, which was rejected by order dated 06.04.2023; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of Haridwar, and therefore, there is no apprehension of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. In view of these facts, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the victim/complainant oppose the bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations. However, they fairly concede that there exists a contradiction regarding the victim’s date of birth and that the F.I.R. was lodged with a delay. They also admit that the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 06.04.2023. 11. It is admitted that the F.I.R. was initially registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, and 376 IPC, and offences under the POCSO Act were added later upon investigation. It is not disputed that a nikah has been solemnized between the applicant and the victim and that the marriage registration could not be completed due to disputes between the families. It is further admitted that there is contradiction regarding the victim’s age at the time of the alleged incident. 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 1st bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.09.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:8102