Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2198/2025 on 9 March, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 2198 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shueb Ali, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. The applicant – Nadeem, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case
Crime No. 24 of 2025, under Sections 137(2)
and 64(1) of BNS and Section 3(a)/4, 5(l)/6
of POCSO, registered at P.S.- Buggawala,
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 father of the victim on 30.04.2025,
wherein, he has alleged that the applicant
induced her daughter, who was 17 years of
age, and took her away from her home on
04.12.2024 and after two days on 06.12.2024
he left the victim back to her home.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that date of birth of the victim as per
the school leaving certificate is 07.04.2007
and even as per the averments made in the
FIR, she was 18 years of age at the time of
incident; that there are major discrepancies in
the statements of the victim given to the
doctor and also in the statement given before
the Court. Every time, different versions have
been narrated by the victim in her statement;
that this FIR has been lodged only to
blackmail the applicant to marry the victim;
that the victim, on her own sweet will, went
with the applicant; and that statement of the
victim has been recorded so there is no
chance of tampering with the evidence or
influencing the witnesses.
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 physical
relationship, if any made 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 and also considering the fact that the
statement of the victim has been recorded so
there is no chance of tampering with the
evidence or influencing the witnesses, 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.)
09.03.2026
Ujjwal