2026:UHC:3333 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1926/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present bail application has been moved seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0268 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that her minor daughter, aged about 17 years, was enticed away by the applicant. It is further alleged that a similar act had been committed earlier by the applicant. He would further submit that as per the arrest memo, the applicant and the victim were apprehended together from Tanda Tiraha, Kashipur on 08.07.2025. 6. He would further submit that in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. on 27.08.2025, she stated that she and the applicant were known to each other for the last three years; that they were in regular contact through social media, 2026:UHC:3333 including Instagram; that they were in a relationship and intended to marry each other; that on 12.02.2025, they went to Haldwani and returned when her mother, along with the police, brought her back; that thereafter, on 24.06.2025, they again went to Haldwani, where they solemnized marriage in a temple on 28.06.2025 and thereafter established physical relations; and that on 07.07.2025, the police apprehended them and brought her back to Kashipur. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S., the prosecutrix has materially improved and changed her version by alleging that the applicant, along with two other persons, forcibly abducted her, confined her, and established physical relations without her consent, while also extending threats. It is submitted that such material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix create serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. 8. It is further submitted that the earlier statement of the prosecutrix, as well as the surrounding circumstances, indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and attention has also been drawn to the statements of the applicant’s mother and neighbours recorded during investigation, wherein they have not supported the allegation of confinement or illegal detention of the prosecutrix. It is thus argued that, considering the proximity of age between the applicant and the prosecutrix (20 and 17 years respectively), the matter appears to arise out of a relationship between adolescents rather than one involving forcible exploitation. 9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicant is in judicial custody 2026:UHC:3333 since 09.07.2025; that, the charge-sheet has already been filed; that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Nainital; and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude; that, the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the court below vide order dated 26.09.2025. 10. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he does not dispute that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S.S., and that the applicant is in custody since 09.07.2025. 11. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record, the nature of allegations, the material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix, the inconsistency regarding the place of arrest of the applicant, the period of incarceration already undergone, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant, Amit Arya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244 f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d 67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26 690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.04 18:54:48 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3333