The presumption of guilt under POCSO Act does not negate the accused's right to a fair trial and personal liberty, particularly in light of insufficient prosecutorial evidence.

2. The Applicant has submitted that he is 64 years old, resident of Mehrauli, New Delhi. He has been working as a driver for more than 20 years and has no criminal antecedents. He was apprehended on 10.07.2023 for the offence under Section of POCSO Act and is in custody since then.

3. The brief facts are that a Complaint was lodged by the Complainant Smt. H that on 09.07.2023 at about 07:00 P.M while she was coming back home from her office, she saw the Applicant with the victim H. Both of them had allegedly pulled down their respective pants and knickers and were masturbating with each other. She confronted the Applicant and tried to catch hold of him, but he ran away. The neighbours informed that the Applicant was residing near the house of the Complainant. A PCR call was made and the Applicant was apprehended on 10.07.2023. His medical examination was got done.

4. The Bail is sought on the ground that the Applicant is in Judicial Custody since 10.07.2023 and he cannot be denied personal liberty by not granting him Bail. His conduct inside the Jail has been proper and no Complaints have been received. There is no probability of his tampering with the evidence. The conclusion of the trial would take some time and there is no likelihood of the Applicant evading the process of justice, if released on Bail.

5. Out of 15 Prosecution witnesses only five witnesses have been examined till date. The material witnesses i.e. the victim; his sister and the Complainant have all been examined. It is further submitted that there are material discrepancies in the statement of the Complainant who has been examined as PW2. All the public witnesses have been examined and there is no chance of tampering with the witnesses. Only the Police witnesses remained to be examined. Reliance is placed on Mukesh vs. State BAIL APPLN.2830/2021 , Ravinder Kumar vs. State BAIL APPLN.35/2023 , Avdesh vs. State BAIL APPLN.2858/2022 , Ram Prasad vs. State NCT of Delhi BAIL APPLN.1923/2023.

6. It is further submitted that no CCTV footage has been recovered by the Police. The clothes of the Applicant and that of the victim have also not been seized. As per the Complainant, about 10-15 persons had gathered on the scene of crime, but no efforts had been made to record their statements. Further, as per the statement of the victim, he narrated the incident to his mother and father and Tauji, but none of them has been cited as prosecution witness. It is a case where the Applicant has been dragged into these proceedings out of personal spite of the Complainant. The case suffers from incomplete and faulty investigations. The Call Detail Records have also not been collected to prove the presence of the Complainant at the scene of crime.

7. The Applicant has been residing in the colony for more than 25 years and no previous Complaints have been brought on record against him of ever been engaged in any anti social activities. He has been falsely implicated because of the personal enmity of the Complainant who did not like the Applicant drinking alcohol with her husband and father-in-law. The false Complaint has been made to take revenge from the Applicant by making false allegations.

8. There was a delay in registration of FIR, which has not been explained. It is claimed that FIR was not registered initially indicating that the e