JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Rajesh Mund @ Bulu is an accused in Kegaon P.S. Case 116 of 2015 which corresponds to C.T. Case No. 353 of 2015 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in which charge sheet has been submitted under sections 366-A, 372 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereafter ‘1956 Act’) and section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereafter ‘POCSO Act’). The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Special judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna vide order dated 29.09.2015.

2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report lodged by one Chema Majhi of village Bagdori before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kegaon Police Station on 15.08.2015 is that on 14.08.2015 at about 10 a.m., three unknown girls came with two unknown persons in two motor cycles to the house of co-accused Dulamani Bihari of village Bagdori and thereafter they took those girls towards the hilly area and engaged those girls in prostitution. It is further stated that previously some unsocial persons also brought minor girls and engaged them in prostitution for which the girls and women of the village were facing a lot of problem and even the parents and guardians of the girls were not allowing them to go to school. The petitioner and other two co-accused persons were named as accused in the First Information Report, in which number of co-villagers put their signatures as witnesses.

On receipt of FIR, Kegaon P.S. Case No. 116 dated 15.08.2015 was registered under sections 4, 5 and 6 of 1956 Act. The Inspector-in-Charge, Kegaon Police Station namely Smt. Smita Kenke herself took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, she visited the spot, examined the informant and other witnesses, arrested the petitioner and other co-accused persons. The victims were rescued and they were sent for medical examination. The accused persons were also medically examined and forwarded to Court on 15.08.2015. As prima facie case was established, charge sheet was submitted on 13.12.2015 against the petitioner and others.

3. During course of investigation, the petitioner moved an application for bail before the learned Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna which was rejected on the ground that 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the victims indicate their age to be 12 and 14 years and the petitioner was identified in the T.I. parade and the accused persons kept the victims girls in a house and sexually assaulted them and moreover the investigation was under progress.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ashwini Kumar Das contended that the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the victims contradict their 164 Cr.P.C statements. In the 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the victims have not stated about any sexual assault on them whereas in their 164 Cr.P.C. statements they have stated so specifically. It is the further contention that in view of such discrepancies, the statements have got no evidentiary value and cannot be acted upon and therefore taking into account the period of detention of the petitioner in judicial custody, the bail application should be favourably considered.

Mr. Prem Kumar Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in view of the statements of the victims recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., prima facie case for the offences in which charge sheet was submitted is clearly established and since the petitioner has been identified in the T.I. parade, in a case of this nature where the victim girls are minors and the accused persons repeatedly committed gang sexual assault on them, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

5. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the victim girls, one of the victim gir