JUDGMENT :

KIRTI SINGH , J. 

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 92 dated 27.11.2024 under Sections 137(2), 96, 64 of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Daba, District Police Commissionerate.

2. The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

“That I am a resident of the above address and I work as a lathe on Sarar Road. I have two daughters, elder daughter xxxx age 15 years and younger daughter xxxx is about 8 years old. My daughter xxxx studies in 8th class at Red Rose School, Daba Lohara Road. Due to some domestic reasons, my daughter was not going to school. On 26-11-2024, 1 had gone to my work at around 10.00 AM, When I came back home at around 8.00 PM, I came to know that my daughter xxxx had gone to the shop from house at around 5.00 PM to collect some household goods, but she did not return home. We searched for her on our own, in the surroundings and among relatives, but nothing was found about my daughter xxxx. I suspect that some unknown person has allured my daughter xxxx and kept her in custody. Regarding which today I was going to Police station to give information, you met me on the way. I have got recorded my statement, heard and it is correct. Legal action should be taken against the unknown/unknown persons. Sd. Gurjit singh verified Jarnail singh ASI P.S. Daba, Ludhiana dated 27.11.2024.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR was initially registered as a missing person complaint on the statement of the father of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the petitioner, aged 21 years, was not named in the FIR at the initial stage. It was only subsequently that allegations of enticement and commission of aggravated sexual assault were introduced. It is the contention that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were well acquainted with each other, and that the prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home, whereafter she willingly accompanied the petitioner to various places. It is further submitted that, there is no cogent evidence on record to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already undergone an actual custody period of 01 year and 04 months and has clean antecedents.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She states that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year and 04 months. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 04.04.2025 and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 04 have been examined till date. She submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Before proceeding further, a gainful reference can also be made to the observations passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, relevant paras whereof reads thus:

"21.In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22.From the earliest times, it was appreci