JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Bhiwani whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 194 dated 12.12.2025 under Sections 62, 75, 96, 137 (2), 140(3), 239, 351(2), 353(2), 3(5) of BNS, Sections 8, 12, 21 of POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Behal, District Bhiwani, was dismissed.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant was duly informed by the Investigating Officer about the pendency of the present appeal.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the appellant) is as follows :

“I Sanjay son of Umed Singh, caste Chamar, R/o Village Hariyawas, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. My daughter XXX whose date of birth is 05.09.2009 told me that 15-20 days prior to today when I was standing at the bus stand of Village Gopal was for going to Behal then one Innova Car bearing No. HR70G3957 stopped. The driver of the car told his name to be Ravi Azad Jaat and told me that he would drop me to Behal and after misleading me made me sit in the car. He started teasing/touching me and started doing bad things. He started forcing himself on me. When I protested then he said that I am a big leader and if you tell it to someone then you along with your family would be killed. When I protested more vigorously then he made me got down at bus stand Behal. Because of fear and public shame I did not tell this to my family. Thereafter on 08^th of December 2009 in the night when I was at the animal shed of the house then one Innova car bearing No.HR70G3957 in which two-three unknown boys were sitting came and said to me that Ravi Azad has called you and they started putting me forcibly in the car. On this I protested and made noise then after leaving me they ran away. When my daughter told me this incident to me then I along with my daughter have come to the police station for giving complaint.”

At the outset, it would be appropriate to recall the observations of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.

“The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury–all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.”

The dedicated balance between personal liberty and societal interest thus lies at the heart of every adjudication on bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the FIR is nothing but an outcome of political rivalry. It is argued that the complainant, in active connivance with the local police, has misused the criminal justice machinery to harass and pressurize the appellant. It is further argued that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been invoked by leveling fabricated allegations merely to bring the case within the ambit of stringent statutory provisions.

Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was not present at the spot and has been implicated only on the basis of hearsay allegations allegedly attributed to the co-accused during investigation. It is also argued that there was delay in setting the criminal law into motion which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Lastly, it is submitted that the co-accused persons have already been granted the concession of bail by the learned Sessions Court and therefore, on the principle of parity, the appellant also deserves the same relief.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the present appeal and submits that the appellant is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to be the principal accused in the occurrence. It is further submit