JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) seeking regular bail on behalf of the petitioner in connection with First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) No.347, dated 17.12.2024, registered at Police Station City Jhajjar, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1), for offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (hereinafter "POCSO Act") and under Sections 137, 64(2) (M), 65 (1), 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS”).

2. The genesis of the prosecution lies in a police complaint dated 17.12.2024 lodged by the mother of a 13 year old girl (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), alleging that her daughter had gone missing from their home. The complainant expressed a firm suspicion that the petitioner had enticed the victim away, a suspicion allegedly fortified by the petitioner's simultaneous absence from his own residence. Consequent to the complaint, the aforesaid FIR was registered, and an investigation was commenced. The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since that date.

3. Upon the culmination of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 04.04.2025, and the case was committed to the learned JMIC, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”). During the trial, the victim was examined as PW-1, wherein she fully corroborated the prosecution's case as narrated by her mother. She deposed in detail that the petitioner had taken her to Delhi and various locations in Uttar Pradesh, where they resided in rented accommodations. She further stated that she was subjected to repeated sexual assaults against her will and without her consent.

4. The petitioner's first bail application was considered and dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Jhajjar on 06.10.2025 vide BA No. BA/1411-2025 (Annexure P-6).

5. The trial is currently in progress. The prosecution has cited a total of 23 witnesses. As on date, five witnesses have been examined, including the complainant-mother and the victim, both of whose testimonies have unequivocally corroborated the prosecution's narrative. The next date for recording evidence is fixed for 29.01.2026.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced a multi- pronged argument seeking grant of bail. The primary contentions are as under:-

(i) That the petitioner has been incarcerated for over a year, and the trial is proceeding at a slow pace, with only five out of the 23 witnesses having been examined. So far, it is argued that such prolonged detention infringes upon the petitioner's right to liberty and the presumption of innocence.

(ii) Emphasis is placed on the victim's initial statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS upon her recovery. In that statement, she allegedly admitted to having been in prior telephonic contact with the petitioner, his visits to her home, and having left her home “by her own sweet will” Crucially, she made no allegation of force or coercion in that statement.

(iii) Ld. counsel highlights that the medical examination of the victim revealed no external injuries. Furthermore, the FSL report confirmed the presence of human semen only on the victim's lower garment and a bedsheet, but not on other exhibits, rendering the forensic evidence inconclusive.

(iv) Relying on the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, it is asserted that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” a principle that ought to be applied in the present case.

7. Per contra, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application. She contends as follows:

(i) That the offences are of a grave and heinous nature, having been committed against a child of tender age of 13 years.

(ii) It is submitted that the victim's categorical and unambiguous testimony recorded duri