JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. In this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner/complainant (father of alleged minor rape victim) has sought indulgence of this court for quashment of order dated 30.03.2020 passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter to be referred as court below), in terms whereof respondent No. 2 has been granted bail in case FIR No. 29/2020 for commission of offences punishable under section 376-D, 363, 109 IPC and section 4 POCSO Act 2012. Respondent No. 1 after entering appearance through State counsel has filed status report, as also has respondent No. 2 filed objections in opposition to the petition.

2. This case reflects a sad and sordid state of affairs. According to the petitioner/complainant his minor daughter came to be abducted by respondent No. 2 along with his two associates on 11.02.2020, (one among them namely Zahid Chowdhary S/o. Saif Ali R/o. Swankhi Bari Brahmana, Samba), and on 12.02.2020 at about 06:00 am was found in a field near his house in unconscious state of mind where after the petitioner got FIR No. 29/2020 dated 12.02.2020 registered for commission of offences punishable under section 376-D, 363, 109 IPC and section 4 POCSO Act with respondent No. 1, against the accused persons including respondent No. 2 and investigation set into motion. According to the petitioner/complainant statement of victim daughter was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim categorically stated that the respondent No. 2 along with his cousin Zahid Choudhary kidnapped her and committed rape upon her. According to the petitioner respondent No. 2 along with aforesaid co-accused moved a bail application before court below on 27.02.2020 which came to be opposed by the petitioner and same came to be dismissed on 18.03.2020. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 seem to have filed another bail application before the same court on 11.03.2020, during the pendency of first bail application and that the petitioner was not aware of the said subsequent bail application, as no notice whatsoever had been issued to the petitioner by the court below and that the trial court in the subsequent bail application at the back of the petitioner granted bail to the respondent No. 2, in terms of impugned order dated 30.03.2020. According to the petitioner, the above exercise had been done at his back in order to enlarge the respondent No. 2 on bail in a camouflaged manner.

3. The petitioner has questioned the aforesaid order inter-alia on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed in a very casual and mechanical manner and without application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and has been passed in a superficial manner without taking note of settled principles of law qua granting of bail in such type of heinous offences committed against minor girl in as much as, that the impugned order has been passed by the court below without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as is envisaged under law. The petitioner has further urged in the grounds of challenge that the impugned order has been passed by the court below in breach of the mandate provided under section 437 Cr.P.C. and in the process the court below while passing the impugned order seemingly has not drawn any satisfaction as required under section 437 (1)(i) Cr.P.C. It is next urged in the ground of challenge by the petitioner that besides observing in breach the aforesaid provision of section 437 Cr.P.C., the court below has failed to take into account the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein the victim had categorically stated that the respondent No. 2 along with his above named cousin kidnapped her and both committed rape upon her and in this view of the matter, coupled with the status report filed by the respondent No. 1 before the court below, there was no occasion in law for the court below to grant bail to the respondent N