Ravindra Maithani, J
1. Counter Affidavits are taken on record. Delay Condonation Applications IA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023 stand disposed of, accordingly.
2. Applicant Arpit is in judicial custody in FIR No.465 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(3), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3, 4(2) and 5(l)/6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, the victim, a young girl of 15 years of age, had left her house on 15.11.2022, at 3:30 AM along with the applicant. She was
not traceable thereafter.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the medical does not support the prosecution case; there have been no injury found in the
person of the victim; the applicant and the victim both were working together in the factory.
6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the victim has already been examined at the trial, and she has supported the prosecution case.
7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this
order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.
8. The victim has already been examined at trial. She has stated her age 15 years. According to her, the applicant took her in a bus to his village
Sitapur. There, he established physical relations with the victim and proposed her. Subsequently, he left the victim.
9. The consent of a child has no significance in such matters. As the victim has stated that her date of birth is 05.01.2007, she was child on the date of
incident.
10. Having considered, this Court does not see any reason, which may entitle the applicant to bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be
rejected.
11. The bail application is rejected.
