The presumption of innocence, the importance of freedom, and the humane approach in considering bail were central to the judgment.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioners, namely Shiv Kumar and Smt. Kesav Bala apprehending their arrest in case FIR No. 142 of 2018, dated 19.6.2018, under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO’), registered at police Station, Sadar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein pre-arrest bail.

2. Sequel to order dated 26.06.2018, whereby this Court had ordered for enlargement of bail petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with FIR detailed hereinabove, SI Ajit Singh, police Station, Sadar, District Kullu, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

3. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 26.6.2018, bail petitioners have joined the investigation and are fully cooperating with the investigating agency.

4. Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that FIR detailed hereinabvoe, came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant/prosecutrix on 19.6.2018, wherein she alleged that on 19.6.2018, at about 3:40 PM, petitioner No.2 stopped her and gave beatings to her. She further alleged that bail petitioner No.2 forcibly took her into the fields and tried to strangulate her. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 called petitioner No.1, who happened to be her son on the spot. Petitioner No.1 abused the complainant/ prosecutrix and behaved indecently with her. Complainant also alleged that during the scuffle, petitioner No.1 made an attempt to outrage her modesty and he also touched her private parts. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR, mentioned hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail petitioners.

5. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners while referring to the record/status report, vehemently submits that no case is made out against the bail petitioners and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and as such, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. While inviting attention of this Court to the documents placed on record alongwith the bail petition, Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel, argues that the complainant/prosecutrix is daughter of Smt. Phulla Kumari, who is tenant of the bail petitioners. Since, Smt. Phulla Kumari failed to pay the rent qua the house rented to her by the bail petitioners, bail petitioners were compelled to file proceedings under Section 14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, for eviction in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Kullu, District Kullu, HP and the same is still pending. Documents placed on record further suggests that vide Annexure P2, dated 4.12.2017, bail petitioner No.2 had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kullu, District Kullu, intimating therein uncalled behaviour of the mother of complainant/prosecutrix, who allegedly on one pretext or other always made an attempt to falsely implicate the bail petitioners or their family members. Vide aforesaid communication, bail petitioner No. 2 requested Superintendent of Police, Kullu, to issue direction to SHO, Mahila Thana, Sarwari Kullu, to take legal action against the respondent under law.

6. Mr. Chaudhary further invites attention of this Court to the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to demonstrate that there are lot of inconsistencies in the two statements given by the complainant/prosecutrix i.e. one is under Section 154 Cr.P.C and another under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He further states that on 19.6.2018, the complainant had actually attacked petitioner No.2 and in this regard FIR already