JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Delay in filing counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit is taken on record. Delay Condonation Application, IA No. 1 of 2024, stands disposed of, accordingly. 2. Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 17 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station-Chakrata, District- Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No. 1927 of 2023, was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2024. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the FIR, on 15.12.2022, the victim was not found in her home. A search was made. It was revealed that, in fact, the applicant has been telephonically in touch with the victim. They had met on multiple occasions and the applicant had exploited the victim under the pretext of marriage. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the victim both were in relationship. This is what the victim has stated during her examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She has stated that the applicant was her friend and their relationship was consensual. 7. Learned State Counsel admits that during investigation, the victim has stated that she was in relationship with the applicant and their relationship was consensual. But, she would submit that in the court, the victim has stated that the applicant established physical relations with her against her will, but she would submit that in the court also, the victim has stated that she was telephonically in touch with the applicant. 8. In the cases of Mahesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online Del 2634, Faizan Wahid Baig vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MHOR/62774/2022, Vijaylakshmi and Another vs. State and Another, 2021 SCC Online Mad 317, Shri John Franklin Shylla vs. State of Meghalaya and Another, 2023 SCC Online Megh 303 and Ashik Ramjali Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2023 SCC Online Bom 1390, the Courts have either granted bail or quashed the proceedings or acquitted the accused in the cases like instant one. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. 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, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant or any of his relatives shall not make any contact with the victim, in any manner, whatsoever, either physically, electronically or by any other means. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and the applicant should not tamper with evidence.