The main legal point established is that the court may grant regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. when the petitioner is not named in the FIR, no allegations are made against the petitioner, and there are factors such as delay in FIR registration, custody duration, and pending trial to consider.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.348 dated 22.05.2020, under Sections 377, 506, 196 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'POCSO Act') and Sections 75/82 of the Juvenile Justice Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar, District Hisar.

2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of statement of complainant made by Charanjit Singh, aged 15 years, who has stated that he is studying in a Gurukul (name concealed), situated at village Dhiranwas for the last three years. On 23.05.2019 at around 10.00PM., Ramesh/co-accused took the complainant on one side and committed wrong act with him and told him not to disclose the matter to anyone otherwise he would fail him and would also issue a bad character certificate to the complainant. It is further alleged that a large number of other teachers from the Gurukul started harassing the complainant and thereafter, the said Ramesh/co-accused again committed wrong act with him and when the news spread, then, large number of teachers including one Nirmal started to harass the complainant. It is alleged that the said Ramesh/co-accused had done the wrongful act two times with the complainant, but on 21.05.2020 at around by 10.30 PM, one Inderjit Arya had come to the house of the complainant and took him to the office where Raj Kumar @ Bajrang Lal Goyal had threatened the complainant to suppress the said two incidents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no allegation against him. It is argued that the wrong act in the present case had been committed by Ramesh/co-accused and the petitioner is not even remotely involved in the said case. It is further submitted that although, the first incident is stated to have taken place on 23.05.2019, yet the present FIR has been registered after a period of almost one year i.e., on 22.05.2020. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner, which has been made during further investigation, is that the petitioner along with other teachers of the Gurukul had forced the students to write an apology letter. Regarding the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure R-2, which is the statement ofthe present complainant with whom the wrong act has been committed, who has stated that the apology letter has been got written by Ramesh Shashtri and Nirmal Shashtri after beating and threatening him to write the said letter. As per the said statement, it has been specifically stated that except Ramesh Shahstri, no other students have committed any wrong act with the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as per the said statement, there is no allegation against the present petitioner that he had forced the complainant to write any apology letter. It is further submitted that Nirmal, against whom the said allegation has been made and who is also named in the FIR, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Hisar, vide order dated 10.11.2021. It is submitted that the case of the present petitioner is on a better footing than that of the said Nirmal and the petitioner has been in custody since 14.06.2021 and the challan has already been presented and there are 22 witnesses and thus, the trial is likely to take time to conclude, moreso, in view of the third wave of the pandemic and the petitioner is not involved in any other case and thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner along with other teachers had forced the students to write an apology letter. In this regard, a reference has been