KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 102 dated 21.5.2025 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 115 of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station City Dhauj, District Faridabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got recorded her statement with the police stating therein that on 20.8.2025 at about 8.00 P.M., her daughter aged 11 years had gone to Mangal Market, Kheri Enclave Part-I, Faridabad with her friend Komal. However, her daughter and her friend get separated. Thereafter accused Kapil and Nikhil met her daughter and took her to an isolated place near Lohiya school on their motorcycle where they also called the present petitioner, and all of them molested her. Her daughter managed to flee from the spot and returned home. It is also alleged therein that the said persons had also inflicted injuries to her daughter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that though there were direct allegations against co-accused Kapil and Nikhil, however, during investigation, the said co-accused were found innocent and they have been exonerated by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that no specific allegations has been attributed to the petitioner either in the present FIR or in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. It is further submitted that the material witnesses have already been examined. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 09 months and 11 days and there is no other criminal case registered against him.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Moreover, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of BNSS has been recorded, wherein she has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner that he and other persons touched her inappropriately and also caused injuries to her. Furthermore, the MLR of the prosecutrix records that she received two injuries on her person.

5. Learned State counsel 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 09 months and 11 days. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer concerned, submits that in the present case, charges were framed on 18.11.2025 and out of total 25 prosecution witnesses, only 01 witness i.e. the complainant has been examined till date. Learned State counsel further submits that subsequently an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. He submits that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

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

7. In the present case, charges have been framed in relation to offence under Sections 10 of the POCSO Act. The same attracts the provisions of Section 29 of the said Act, the bare language of which speaks about the adverse presumption to be drawn against a person prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the Act unless the contrary is proved, thereby raising the threshold of satisfaction required.

8. Prima facie grave and serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner that he molested the prosecutrix, stated to be 11 years of age and caused injuries to her by hitting her head against the wall. The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has reiterated the version recorded in the FIR. The MLR of the pros