JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 11/2021 dated 9.2.2021, under Sections 354-A, 504, 506, 509 & 201 of IPC, Section 75 of JJ Act and Section 12 of POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent State has filed the Status report in terms of order dated 24.3.2021. Smt. Sunita Verma, Ins/SHO Women Police station Solan, District Solan H.P., is also present with records. Records perused and returned.

2. Record/status report reveals that police on 9.2.2021, victimprosecutrix lodged a complaint at WPS Solan, alleging therein that her father behaves indecently and on one occasion, had also shown his private parts to her. Complainant alleged that her father maltreats her as well as her mother and brother. She alleged that her father repeatedly picks up quarrel with her mother on the ground that her younger brother is not his son, rather has born from the lions of some other person. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed herein above came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and since then, he is behind bars. Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that prior to filing of the FIR at hand, victim-prosecutrix had also lodged one complaint to the Police Station, alleging therein that her father had shown his private part to her, but such complaint was subsequently, withdrawn, on account of compromise arrived inter-se parties. In the case at hand, precise allegation of the victim-prosecutrix is that her father behaves indecently and constantly maltreats her as well as her mother and brother.

5. Having carefully perused statements of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Sections 154 and 164 Cr.PC., this Court has reason to presume that complaint lodged against the bail petitioner is result of matrimonial discord inter-se mother of the victim-prosecutrix and present bail petitioner i.e. father of the victim-prosecutrix. Moreover, allegation with regard to showing of private parts by the petitioner to the complainant already stands settled on account of compromise arrived inter-se petitioner and the complainant in the earlier complaint filed by complainant, hence, cannot be made basis to reject bail in the instant case. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the Investigating Agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter coupled with the fact that nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial.

6. Needless to say, object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and th