IMPORTANT POINT
The court applied the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sidharam Satlinggappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to determine the grant of pre-arrest bail based on the apprehension of arrest.

JUDGMENT

1. On 14th July, 2021 an FIR was lodged before the In-charge, Garobadha Police Outpost to the effect that her younger daughter was found missing from home at around 2:00 PM for which necessary action by the police is prayed for.

2. On receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered as Tura Women P.S. Case No.57(07)21 u/s 363 IPC. However, on the same day, the said missing girl was recovered from Mahendraganj and was reunited with her family. As per procedure, the statement of the girl who was said to be a minor was recorded u/s 161 and also u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Other relevant witnesses were also examined.

3. In course of investigation, the Investigation Officer has thought it fit to add Sections 3(a)/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and as such, the case proceeded for further investigation.

4. The petitioner, being apprehensive of arrest in connection with the said Tura Women P.S. Case No.57(07)21 has approached the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tura with a prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail, but vide order dated 09.12.2021 the learned Special Court had rejected the application. Accordingly, the petitioner has now approached this Court with an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C for grant of pre-arrest bail.

5. Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned Sr. counsel along with Ms. M. K. Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the petitioner on coming to know that the police had come looking for him is therefore apprehending that he may be arrested in connection with the said Tura Women P.S. Case No.57(07)21. The fact is that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case, though his name was not reflected in the FIR and furthermore, the complainant's daughter was never recovered from his custody but from someone else's house in Mahendraganj.

6. The petitioner is a young man of 21 years with no criminal background and if granted pre-arrest bail, he is willing to cooperate with the investigation and will abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Mr. Siddiqui has therefore, prayed that this petition is made bona fide in the interest of justice and fair play and the same may be allowed.

7. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA has submitted that this Court vide order dated 03.03.2022 has directed that the Case Diary be produced before this Court today and accordingly, the same is produced herein.

8. Mr. Kharmih has further submitted that from the contents of the Case Diary, what can be seen is that the Investigating Officer has examined the victim girl as well as the complainant and other witnesses and the victim girl was also further examined u/s 164 Cr.P.C. What is evident is that the victim girl has revealed that she is having a love affair with the petitioner, but because of differences in caste, the family members of the petitioner refused to accept her in the family and she was accordingly taken to the house of one lady at Mahendraganj. There, the petitioner along with his sister-in-law and two others tried to persuade her to return home but she refused. They then threaten to call the police, but the victim girl instead threatens to file a case against them. She was then taken to one hut near the rice field and was told to wait for the petitioner's mother and sister to come. However, in the meantime, the petitioner received a call and immediately left the place. Thereafter, the police came and escorted her to her home.

9. From the narration made above, it can be assumed that the petitioner is involved in the case surrounding the alleged kidnapping of the said victim girl and even a case of sexual assault as is evident from the chargesheet filed by the I/O who has found that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and that there had been physical sexual contact with the petitioner herein for which Section 3(a)/4 of POCSO Act was added to the case implicating the petitioner herein as an accused.

10. In an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C., the main consideration for the Court to look into i