The presumption of innocence, discretion of the judge in granting bail, and the factors to be considered in deciding a bail petition were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Sequel to order dated 9.8.2021, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.14 of 2021, dated 27.07.2021, under sections 376, 354(a),(c),(d), 292, 294 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police Station, Mahila Police Thana, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. SI Vidya Sagar has also come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned.

2. Status report/record reveals that on 13.8.2021, victim/ prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), lodged a complainant at Mahila Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., disclosing therein that she is student of 10th class and her date of birth is 1st June, 2003. She alleged that one year back bail petitioner finding her alone at home sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She stated before the police that though she had raised hue and cry, but since none was around, nobody came forward for her help. She alleged that after the alleged incident bail petitioner threatened her that in case she disclosed this incident to anybody, he would make video of alleged incident made by him viral. She alleged that after two months of first incident bail petitioner again finding her alone sexually assaulted her and despite her repeated requests, failed to delete the video from his phone. She alleged that on 25th July, 2021, bail petitioner misbehaved indecently with her, however he after having seen her Uncle Chanan Singh, fled away from the spot. She alleged that bail petitioner keeps stalking her with the intention to tarnish her image and he has also written bad words about her on the walls of the houses in the village. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner, who pursuant to order dated 8.9.2021 has already joined the investigation. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for confirmation of interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021.

3. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by the petitioner, submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that since at the time of alleged offence age of the victim/prosecutrix was less than 18 years, consent, if any, of her, is immaterial and as such, present petition may be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that incident allegedly happened/occurred one year prior to lodging of the FIR, but no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the delay in filing the FIR. Though, in the initial complaint victim/prosecutrix claimed that after three months of first incident, she was again subjected to sexual intercourse by bail petitioner, but there is no material available on record suggestive of the fact that attempt, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of victim/prosecutrix, who at that relevant time was 17 years old to lodge the complaint either with the Gram Panchayat or with the police, rather she kept on waiting till filing of the FIR, which is subject matter of the present case. If the statement of the victim/prosecutrix made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is red in its entirety, it can safely be inferred that victim/prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the bail petitioner and she wanted to solemnize