The severity of the alleged offence, potential witness intimidation, and the character of the accused are crucial factors in considering bail applications for serious offences.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. The petitioner through the medium of instant petition in terms of Section 435 Cr.P.C. read with Section 497-A/498 Cr.P.C. is seeking setting aside of order of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Fast Track Court) dated 20.05.2016 passed in File No. 171/Cr. Misc., in case titled as State v. Pawan Kumar and Ors., in FIR NO. 221/2015, registered with Police Station Akhnoor, whereby learned Trial Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner, and with a further prayer to grant him bail.

2. The facts in brief as emerges from the police challan are that on 02.12.2015, a written complaint was lodged by one Surinder Kumar in the Police Station, Akhnoor, alleging that his daughter aged 15 years, being minor, and was studying in 10th class, was missing from house since 12.11.2015. He had inquired from all of his relatives but could not trace her and because of said reasons there was a delay in lodging the report with the police. In the complaint, it was further stated that later on he came to know that one Abhi alias Gulshan Kumar son of Tarseem Lal resident of Pathankot, who used to visit the school of her daughter and he also called her twice on her cell phone, has kidnapped her. On this report FIR No. 221/2015, for commission of offence under Section 363 Ranbir Penal code was registered in Police Station Akhnoor and investigation commenced. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of accused Gulshan Kumar alias Abhi from Tangu Chowk. The prosecutrix was got medically examined by Investigating Officer from SDH Akhnoor and also got recorded her statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. On the basis of the statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., offence under Section 376 Ranbir Penal code was added and accused-Pawan Kumar, Amit Gupta and Anil Magotra, were arrested on 19.12.2015. The prosecutrix stated before the Magistrate that she was forcibly raped by the accused persons, namely, Amit Gupta, Pawan Kumar, Rahul, Anil Magotra, Harvinder Singh alias Pintu and Hardeep Tangotra alias Sahil alias Rehan. She stated that these accused persons were harassing and threatening her of defamation and by enticing Her, committed rape upon her. On completion of investigation, challan was produced against accused persons, namely, Amit, Rahul, Pawan, Anil Magotra and Harvinder Singh alias Pintu whereas accused Sahil alias Hardeep Tangotra was found involved in commission of offence under Section 376/511 Ranbir Penal code.

3. The petitioner constrained by the constant threat of his arrest finally challenged FIR and charge' sheet No. 279/challan in a petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. No. 118/2016, which came up for consideration before the Court on 15.03.2016 and this Court passed the following order:-

"In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner coupled with the averments of the petition at the first instant, it shall be quite appropriate to ask both the respondents to remain personally present.

Notice be issued for their presence executable through Police Station concerned.

List again in the week following next in a regular cause list."

4. The case was again listed on 31.03.2016 when the prosecutrix was present in the Court. She appeared along with her counsel. She in the open Court stated that the petitioner was not known to her. Her submission was taken on record and in view of her statement, this Court protected the petitioner from harassment by directing the trial Court to admit the petitioner to bail after furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and surety bond of the like amount. It was further directed that thereafter trial Court shall hear the petitioner vis-a-vis framing or otherwise of the charge. Further proceedings shall abide by the order of the trial Court. With these observations, the petition was disposed of.

5. The arguments on charge were heard by the trial court and ultimately learned Trial Court has framed charge ag