The court grants bail considering the long custody period and indications of mutual consent in the allegations.

1.The applicant is under arrest in connection with crime registered pursuant to F.I.R. Number 80/2024 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hanumangarh in respect of offences punishable under section(s) 376(2)(n), 313, 342, 376D, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 11/12 of Protection of children from sexual offences act. He has approached this Court by way of this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2.I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the record.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner and the prosecutrix have lived together for almost four years and because of some differences, with cropped up between the parties (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7730/2024]

, the prosecutrix has lodged the present FIR after a delay of more than four years.

5.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the different submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and he thus, craves rejection of the applicants’ bail application.

6.I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions with reference to material placed before me.

7.On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be clear that after investigation, offences under Section 376(2)(n), 344 and 354 of the IPC have been found to be proved in respect of prosecutrix Smt. Mamta Rai and offence under Section 11 /12 of POCSO Act has been found to be proved in respect of daughter of the prosecutrix Ms. ‘V’. The challan papers reveal that prosecutrix is in contact and cohabiting with petitioner since January 2020 and has resided with the petitioner at several places for long durations. It is also seen that as per the allegation, the prosecutrix got pregnant due to proximity of the petitioner.

Prima facie, the matter appears to be one of mutual consent.

Chargesheet has already been submitted.

8.Having considered the material available on record; the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant particularly the facts narrated above and the fact that applicant is in custody since 06.05.2024; that trial is likely to take its own considerable time and taking note of all these aspects, I do not intend to go into the [CRLMB-7730/2024]

(3 of 3) merits of the matter but of the considered view that the applicant has available to him substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in detention for an indefinite period therefore, I am inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner at this stage.

9.Consequently, the present bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-applicant Pawandeep Singh S/o Late Shri Mukhtyar Singh, arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No. 80/2024, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond and two surety bonds of sufficient amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of his release, and sureties on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as copy of front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.