Bail granted where victim’s voluntary conduct and age discrepancies indicate a prima facie consensual relationship.

The applicant, Pankaj, sought regular bail following his arrest on February 21, 2024, in connection with Case Crime No. 91 of 2024 involving allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor

A missing person report was initially filed by the victim’s father on February 16, 2024, and the victim was subsequently recovered from the applicant’s company in Haridwar

This is the second bail application, as the first was dismissed for non-prosecution

Charges were framed under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 IPC, and Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, and the trial is currently underway with statements from the victim and complainant already recorded

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of consensual relationship, contradictions in the victim's age, and the duration of judicial custody

The court considered the penal provisions for kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the aggravated sexual assault provisions under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act

determination of a victim’s age must be scrutinized when conflicting evidence (Aadhaar Card vs. School Certificate) exists

standard bail jurisprudence regarding the nature of allegations, the absence of criminal history, the length of incarceration, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence during a prolonged trial

The court evaluated the applicant's contention that the relationship was consensual, noting the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she admitted to contacting the applicant voluntarily and leaving her home without force

The court observed that the medical report showed no internal or external injuries suggestive of forcible assault

It further examined the discrepancy in the victim's age, noting the prosecution relied on a school certificate (14 years), while the Aadhaar Card and the lack of an ossification test created a degree of doubt

The court reasoned that since the primary witnesses (victim and complainant) had already been examined, there was no immediate risk of the applicant influencing the evidence

Considering the applicant had been in custody since February 2024 and had no prior criminal record, the court found the grounds for continued detention insufficient

The court ordered the release of Pankaj on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court

The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the final merits of the case