The presumption of innocence, the importance of freedom until guilt is proven, and the factors to be considered for granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J —Bail petitioner namely Bittu, who is behind bars since 5.3.2018, has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, seeking therein his regular bail in case FIR No. 22/18 dated 1.3.2018, under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at PS Tissa, District Chamba, HP.

2. Sequel to order dated 2.4.2018 passed by this Court, ASI Sat Pal, I/o P.S. Tissa, District Chamba, HP, has come present in Court alongwith record of the case. Record perused and returned. 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.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 1.3.2018, complainant namely Brij Lal, made a complaint to the police, stating therein that on 2.2.2018, his wife namely Guddo, disclosed that on 25.2.2018, her daughter had gone at a distance of half a kilo meter for fetching water. When victim was in process of taking water from the source, allegedly bail petitioner came from the back side and taking undue advantage of innocence of victim, who at that relevant time was 10 years old, made an attempt to sexually assault her. Since victim raised hue and cry, her aunt namely Kamali, who at that relevant time, was collecting fuel woods in the Jungle, came to the spot and rescued the victim. Allegedly, bail petitioner fled from the spot after having seen above named person coming to the spot. Subsequently, victim disclosed to her Bua i.e. Kamali that the bail petitioner namely Bittu took her towards Jungle and after having gagged her mouth opened her Pajama. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner and since 5.3.2018, bail petitioner is behind the bars.

4. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, representing the bail petitioner while referring to the status report/record, vehemently contended that no case, if any, is made out against the bail petitioner under Section 376 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, because bare perusal of the record itself suggests that nothing concrete has emerged against the bail petitioner.

He further contended that if the history given by the doctor while medically examining the victim, is perused juxtaposing statement given by the victim under Section 164 CrPC, it creates doubt with regard to the correctness and genuineness of the story put forth by the prosecution. Mr. Khajuria, further contended that it is not understood that when police had taken victim to the doctor for medical examination, why father of the victim refused for the medical examination of the victim and as such, there is no evidence worth the name available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner made an attempt to sexually assault the victim. While inviting attention of this Court to the copy of FIR dated 1.12.2009, which is taken on record, Mr. Khajuria, contended that there is an old enmity between the families of the bail petitioner and the victim and in the past also, father of the complainant had lodged frivolous complaint under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC against the grandfather of the bail petitioner, however, fact remains that he was acquitted in that case by the competent court of law. Lastly, Mr. Khajuria, contended that bail petitioner is 19 years young boy, and in case he is kept behind bars for an indefinite period, no fruitful purpose would be served, rather great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who has a bright career ahead.

5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. He further contended that true it is that father of the victim refused to subject his daughter/victim to