JUDGMENT :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

The petitioner through the medium of instant application seeks bail in FIR No. 88/2021 dated 23.08.2021 registered with Police Station Pantha Chowk for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

2. According to the prosecution version, on 23.08.2021 the complainant victim namely “X” accompanied by her father filed a written complaint in the Police Station to the effect that on evening of 20.08.2021 complainant along with her mother went to attend the Moharam/Alam Sharief procession and due to huge gatherings/rush of the people she got separated from her mother and taking advantage of the same as also of the darkness, she was kidnapped by two persons namely Mubarak Ali Wani S/o Mohd Amin Wani R/o Balhama and Majid Ahmad Sofi S/o Gh Mohd Sofi R/o Balhama, and was taken to an unknown place and that she was made unconscious by forcing her to take a drink and thereafter rape was committed upon her and on next morning on regaining consciousness, she saw her clothes stained with blood and that she thereafter went to her friend’s home where her parents also came and she narrated whole incident to them.

3. Upon setting into motion the investigation, medical examination is stated to have been conducted of the victim and samples thereof sent to FSL for expert opinion besides statements of the witnesses were recorded as also statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.PC and that the victim is 15 years of age (minor) and upon completion of the investigation offences under Section 363, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act were found to have been made out against the accused persons besides offences under Section 363 IPC and Section 17 of POCSO the Act were found to have been made against the accused Mubarak Ali.

4. A charge sheet is stated to have been filed before the competent court (Fast track court POCSO cases Srinagar) (hereinafter for short the trial court).

5. The case setup by the petitioner in the instant application while praying for bail is that the prosecution case does not disclose the commission of offence either under IPC or POCSO Act against the petitioner and that the investigation conducted is not in accordance with law and norms and involvement of the petitioner is not proved beyond any shadow of doubt and that the evidence including medical evidence does not connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence, in view of the opinion of the medical officer who is stated to have said that it cannot be commented as to whether intercourse has taken place or not and that FIR in question has been lodged after 3 days of disappearance of the victim and that there is no explanation thereto and that the petitioner/accused is not required for custodial investigation and that charge sheet has been laid before the competent court and that accused petitioner is a young student belonging a well to do family and his detention will harm and destroy his career and enlarging him on bail will not cause any prejudice to the trial.

6. Per contra, respondents have filed objections to the bail application and oppose the same inter-alia on the grounds that chargesheet reflects in clear terms the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of offences of rape with common intention and that the offences are grave and heinous in nature and that the victim is 15 years old (minor) and that the trial is yet to commence and witnesses yet to appear in the witness box, as such, application is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it becomes imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case to refer to the law laid down by the Apex court on the subject of bail and issues connected thereto. The Apex court in case titled “Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another”, reported in 2014 (16) SCC 508, has laid down at para