2026:UHC:622 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1055/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant – Naresh Singh is in judicial custody in connection with Special Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2025, pending before the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, arising out of F.I.R. dated 13.09.2024, registered for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. Initially, the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself, wherein she alleged that she was approximately 17 years of age. It was stated that in January 2024, her marriage had been formally fixed with one Nitesh Nautiyal; however, she was allegedly in a love relationship with the present applicant, whom she had known for the last about three years. It was further alleged that when the applicant disclosed the said relationship to Nitesh Nautiyal, the proposed marriage between the victim and Nitesh Nautiyal was broken off. It was also alleged that thereafter the victim fell ill and, upon medical examination, came to know that she was about five months pregnant. 2026:UHC:622 Subsequently, she was admitted to the hospital and allegedly gave birth to a male child. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the age of the victim, as mentioned in the F.I.R., is not corroborated by any documentary evidence, including the school leaving certificate or any other reliable record. It is further submitted that the male child allegedly born to the victim on 13.09.2024 did not survive and expired on 16.09.2024. Learned counsel would further submit that both the applicant and the victim were around 17 years of age at the relevant point of time and were thus of tender age. It is contended that the applicant and the victim were in a consensual love relationship, and that the alleged physical relationship was consensual in nature. It is also submitted that the applicant and the victim belong to different castes, and the parents of both sides were opposed to their marriage. 6. It is further contended that the victim has resiled from her earlier version, and in her testimony before the Trial Court as PW-1, she has categorically stated that the F.I.R. was lodged at the dictation of the Investigating Officer. She has admitted that she was in a relationship not only with the present applicant but also with another person. She further stated that the child born to her was not fathered by the applicant, though this assertion is not supported by any forensic or DNA evidence on record. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant is languishing in judicial custody since 2026:UHC:622 18.09.2024, and prolonged incarceration would seriously prejudice the future of the applicant, who is a young boy. On these grounds, prayer is made that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that serious and grave allegations have been levelled against the applicant; however, it is not disputed that the applicant has been in custody since 18.09.2024. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court observes that a recurring trend has been noticed wherein prosecutrixes, after engaging in consensual physical relationships arising out of love affairs, subsequently initiate criminal proceedings by lodging FIRs alleging coercion or exploitation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 11. The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 22.01.2026 Mamta