ORDER :

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 5/2022, dated 16.01.2022, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 & 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’), registered at Police Station Nankhari, Tehsil Nankhari, Distt. Shimla, H.P.

2. The victim was on visit to Shimla since 07.01.2022 and was staying with her Aunt (Massi). Since 11.01.2022, the victim was not feeling well. On 15.01.2022, the victim was advised certain tests by the Medical Officer in Deen Dayal Upadhay (D.D.U.) Hospital, Shimla and from such tests it was discovered that victim was carrying pregnancy. Thereafter victim disclosed to her mother that she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the bail petitioner firstly on 04.11.2021 and thereafter on 10.12.2021. She disclosed that on 04.11.2021, she was assaulted at village Sholi (Karalta) when she had gone to participate in a fair and on 10.12.2021, the bail petitioner visited her house at 1:30 in the night and had committed offence. The father of the victim, with aforesaid allegations, approached police on 16.01.2022, on the basis of which, the above noted case came to be registered.

3. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the above noted case, on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation is complete and challan has been filed in the Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is young person of 21 years of age and belongs to a respectable family. There is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. He has no criminal background. He has undertaken to abide by all the conditions, as may be imposed against him. He has further undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail petition. It is contended that petitioner is accused of serious offence. The investigating agency has been able to collect sufficient evidence including scientific evidence i.e. DNA profiling against the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.

6. It is more than settled that the Court while deciding the bail petition will not scan the evidence collected by investigating agency minutely. However, the Court is not precluded from looking into the available material in order to assess the gravity and seriousness of the allegations.

7. The victim at the time of alleged offence is stated to be 17 years 8 months old. In the nature of allegations, the conduct of the victim in not reporting the offence immediately speaks for itself. Though, the victim was to attain the age of majority in next about four months, but she definitely had attained the age of discretion. It is not the case that victim is of weak intellect.

8. The allegations, if proved, shall attract their legal consequences. Pretrial incarceration cannot be ordered as a rule. The facts of each case have to be evaluated on their own merits. It is not the case of the respondent that the release of the petitioner on bail shall be prejudicial to the fate of the trial. Such apprehension can otherwise be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. In the given facts of the case, no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody for indefinite period as the trial will take some time before its conclusion.

9. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Village & P.O. Sholi, Tehsil Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the course of justice. It is also not the case of the respondent that petitioner has potential to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner is a young person and his prolonged incarceration before conclusion of trial may mar his career.

10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petiti