The court established that in serious offences, particularly against minors, societal interest may outweigh individual liberty in bail considerations.

ORDER

1. Petitioner has sought regular bail in terms of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the ‘Code’) in case FIR No. 25/2022 dated 30-03-2022 registered with police station Miran Sahib Jammu for commission of offences punishable u/ss 377/506 IPC r/w Sections 4/5(m) of POCSO Act on the grounds, that petitioner is citizen of India and permanent resident of UT of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, entitled to the protection of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India including right to freedom and liberty. It is averred, that petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age, belongs to respectable family and after passing 12th standard in the year 2020 was about to join college for pursuing higher studies, but has been involved in false and frivolous FIR which later on culminated into production of challan which is pending trial in the court of Special Judge POCSO Cases Jammu and petitioner from the date of his arrest on 30-03- 2022 is languishing in District Jail Ambphalla Jammu despite the fact that he has not committed any offence. It is moreso averred, that the trial court while rejecting his bail application vide order dated 12-10-2022 has not considered crucial aspect of the matter that except allegations there is no documentary proof or otherwise which even remotely suggest the involvement of petitioner in the commission of offences attributed to him as the trial court has not even considered the medical report forming part of the charge sheet which clearly negates the stand of victim that unnatural offence has been committed against him. It is averred, that the Ld. Trial Court has not even taken into consideration the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in cases viz; State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand [(1977) 4 SCC 308] & Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI [2012 (1) SCC 94] which lay down that the basic rule perhaps tersely is that “bail is rule” and “jail is an exception”; moreso, petitioner shall not jump over the bail and undertakes to abide by all such terms and conditions as are found just and proper while admitting him to bail.

2. Respondents by filing objections/status report have opposed the bail on the grounds, that petitioner cannot claim bail as a matter of right as he is involved in cognizable and heinous unnatural offence u/s 377/506 IPC r/w offences under Sections 4/5(m) POCSO Act and there is every likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice. It is contended, that release of accused on bail would have adverse effect on the fair trial of the case as the liberty of the petitioner is subservient to the interest of public at large.

3. Ld. Counsel for petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of bail application, has sought the enlargement of petitioner on bail by canvassing arguments, that the FIR in question is motivated, petitioner has been involved in false and frivolous FIR, for the last more than 1 year petitioner is languishing in District Jail Ambphalla Jammu, bail is rule and refusal is an exception, personal liberty is of paramount importance and petitioner is presumed to be innocent till guilt is proved against him. It is argued, that keeping of accused in incarceration for an indefinite period would amount to infliction of pre-trial punishment which is against basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, petitioner has deep roots in the society and does not possess the golden wings to flee from justice, moreso, the medical report negates the involvement of petitioner for commission of unnatural offence attributed to him. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) (1977) 4 SCC 308 [State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand, (ii) 2012 (1) SCC 94 [Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI] & (iii) 2006 Legal Eagle (SC) 120 [Yerumalla Latchaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh].

4. Ld. GA, per-contra, while opposing the bail has vehemently articulated arguments, that the victim of crime is a child of 11 years of age and at the relevant ti