1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.320/2016 under Sections 354(D)/342/363/506 IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”).

2. The submissions of leaned counsel for the petitioner are twofold, firstly that as per the allegations in the FIR, ingredients for offences as alleged have not been made out including the one punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and even if made out, the same being bailable offences, the petitioner is required to be released on bail on his furnishing surety bond. To press the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even as per the allegations of the prosecutrix, the petitioner had blocked phone number of the prosecutrix, thus it was the prosecutrix who was after the petitioner and not vice-versa. Further even taking the allegations on the face of it, no act has been attributed to the petitioner with sexual overtones which is an essential ingredient for the offences alleged. With regard to the second contention, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as (2001) 5 SCC 34 Rajeev Chaudhary Vs. State (NCT)