JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for grant of bail in case FIR No. 3 of 2018, dated 19th May, 2018, under Sections 376, 511, 201, 34, 177 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and Section 3 (1) (w) (ii) of SC & ST Act, registered at Police Station Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. For enlarging the petitioner on bail, it has been canvassed that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in present case without any allegation or evidence against him; he has no role in commission of offence and there is change in version of the statement of the complainant with regard to manner in which alleged offence was committed. Further that even if prosecution case is considered to be true, there is nothing on record to infer that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence and it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and, therefore, the rejection of bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 12th July, 2018, is unwarranted, whereas, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the statement of prosecutrix, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3. Before dealing with the case in hand, it is apt to refer to the principles laid down and factors culled out by the apex Court, required to be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of bail applications by the Courts. 4. Some of the principles evolved in various pronouncements of the apex Court are as under: 1. Grant of bail is general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in correction home during trial is an exception and presumption of innocence, i.e. person is believed to be innocent until found guilty is fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. But, these principles are not applicable in cases where there is reverse onus and/or statutory presumption with regard to commission of offence. Such cases are to be dealt with differently keeping in view statutory presumption and reverse onus provided under the relevant statute. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , para 1) 2. Such cases are to be dealt with differently keeping in view statutory presumption and reverse onus provided under the relevant statute. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , para 1) 2. While making a general statement of law that the accused is innocent, till proved guilty, the statutory provisions of relevant Act, like Section 29 of the POCSO Act, have to be taken into consideration which provides for presumption as to commission of any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 22) 3. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The Court has only to opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment upon the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. (See Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ) 4. A bail application is not to be entertained on the basis of certain observations made in a different context. There has to be application of mind and appreciation of the factual score and understanding of the pronouncements in the field. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 14) 5. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 16; CBI versus Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 ) 6. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 16; CBI versus Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 ) 6. The Courts are not oblivious of the fact that the liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is founded on the bedrock of the constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is basically a natural right. In fact, some regard it as the grammar of life. No one would like to lose his liberty or barter it for all the wealth of the world. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilised society. It is a cardinal value on which the civilisation rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilised. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. A democratic body polity which is wedded to rule of law, anxiously guards liberty. But, a pregnant and significant one, the liberty of an individual is not absolute. [The] society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its members, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in the disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in the disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law. (See Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P., (2014) 6 SCC 508 , para 16; Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70 , para 16; Masroor versus State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 , para 15; Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , paras 10 & 25; Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 paras 10, 11) 7. Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of the case are to be avoided. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , para 8; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11); Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 2.) Consideration of details of the evidence is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided by refraining from considering the merits of material/evidence collected by the prosecution. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 15; and Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, decided on 18th September, 2018) 8. It is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the accused as this is a subject matter to be dealt with by the trial Judge. (See Dataram Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , para 16) 9. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent, material contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial and not at the time of consideration of grant of bail. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 28) 10. Where prima facie involvement of the accused is apparent, material contradictions in the charge sheet are required to be tested at the time of trial and not at the time of consideration of grant of bail. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 28) 10. Probability or improbability of the prosecution version has to be judged based on the material available to the court at the time when bail is considered and not on the basis of discrepancies. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 21) 11. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and reasons for grant of bail in cases involving serious offences should be given. (See Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 : (SCC pp. 535-36, para 11); Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2012) 4 SCC 134 , para 32; Vinod Bhandari versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 15 SCC 389, para 13; Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 29) 12. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15) 13. Giving reasons is different from discussing evidence/merits and demerits. (See Puran versus Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 , para 8; State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178 , para 15) 14. Under Section 439 CrPC, the Sessions Court and the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, an application filed before the High Court under Section 439 CPC, after rejection of an application filed before Sessions Court under the said Section, is definitely a successive application and is not a revision or appeal against rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court. 15. An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. 15. An accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. (See Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit versus State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, para 30) 16. The period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. (See Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129, para 24; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala versus State of Gujarat (2008) 3 SCC 775 , para 22 and Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 , para 9) 17. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the chargesheet for trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 12) 5. Filing of charge sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the chargesheet for trial of the accused persons. (See Virupakshappa Gouda and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , para 12) 5. The relevant factors to be kept in mind at the time of consideration of bail applications are as follows: (1) Satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge as to whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (2) Nature and gravity of the accusation/ charge; (3) Seriousness of the offence/crime and severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (4) Nature and character of supportive evidence; (5) Character, conduct, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (6) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused and the Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case; (7) The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (8) Position and status of accused with reference to the victim and witnesses to assess the impact that release of accused may make on the prosecution witnesses and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced or tampered with or apprehension of threat to the complainant/witnesses and possibility of obstructing the course of justice; (9) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (10) likelihood and possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences; (11) A reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and danger of the accused absconding or fleeing from justice; (12) Impact of grant of bail on the society and danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail affecting the larger interest of the public or the State; (13) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (14) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (15) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (16) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail; (17) No doubt, this list is not exhaustive. There are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The matter always calls for judicious exercise of discretion by the Court. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 ; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 ; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 ; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Chaman Lal versus State of U.P. and another, (2004) 7 SCC 525 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 , para 11); Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13 , para 16); State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , para 18; Prashanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 ; Prakash Kadam versus Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189 ; Kanwar Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2012) 12 SCC 180 ; Anil Kumar Yadav versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2018) 12 SCC 129; Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2018, titled The State of Orissa versus Mahimananda Mishra, decided on 18th September, 2018) 6. In present case, FIR against the petitioner has been registered under Section 4 of POCSO Act. In Section 4 of POCSO Act, punishment for commission of offence under Section 3 of the said Act has been provided and with respect to commission of offence under Section 3, a presumption of guilt has been provided under Section 29 of the said Act, which reads as under:- “29. Presumption as to certain offences.- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.” 7. Presumption as to certain offences.- Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.” 7. Perusal of the status report filed and record produced by the prosecution reveals that prosecutrix has approached the Police Post Kachaa Tank, Nahan in the midnight between 18th19th May, 2018, without lower inner wear and salwar, but, wearing shirt only and covering her lower body with dupatta (chunni) and narrated that after taking her examination at Paonta Sahib, before returning to Nahan, where she was residing in the house of a retired Principal as maid, her friend Sunil met her, who took her with one another boy on a bike and violated her person and was asking her to spent the whole night with him, but, on her refusal, he retained her salwar and bag and did not return the same despite repeated requests, compelling her to left the place without salwar covering her lower body with dupatta (chunni) and to start for Nahan on foot and she also signalled to stop the vehicles, but, no one stopped except a private bus in which she came to Kachaa Tank Police Chowki, Nahan. 8. As per prosecution case, she was provided clothes by the police and was taken to Women Police Station, Nahan, where FIR was registered on 19th May, 2018, whereafter, she was taken to the Magistrate on 20th May, 2018 and her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded wherein she further disclosed that she accompanied Sunil and another boy Ghodu on the bike and boarded the truck alongwith them where a third boy, namely Aman Sharma @ Ojas was also present and in the presence of Ghoru and Aman Sharma @ Ojas, Sunil had violated her and, thereafter, the two boys, i.e. Ghoru (second boy) and Aman Sharma @ Ojas (third boy) had also tried to violate her forcibly, who had also taken her lower inner wear and salwar to compel her to submit herself to their lust forcibly. However, with great difficulty, she jumped from the truck to save her, but, accused persons kept her clothes with them causing her to come to Nahan after covering her lower body with her dupatta, in a private bus and to approach Police Post Kachaa Tank at Nahan, where police had provided clothes to her and at that time, she was perplexed and under duress causing disclosure of place of occurrence as a forest near Shambhuwala whereas the occurrence had taken place in the truck. 9. In the meanwhile, police had also obtained CDR of telephone number of accused-Sunil supplied by the prosecutrix and on the basis of call details, two persons, namely Sachin and Aman @ Ojas were called by police for investigation where Aman @ Ojas has disclosed the incident in the same manner as has been disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and also disclosed the registration number of the truck involved in the incident and name of its driver (second boy – Ghoru) as Deepak Singh, and Sachin, who has also been cited as a witness in the challan, a driver of another truck, has stated that on the day and at the time of incident, he was also going towards Khanna whereto petitioner-Deepak Singh had loaded his truck and on noticing petitioner Deepak Singh, he had tried to contact the petitioner by signalling and calling him to stop. But, petitioner Deepak Singh had not stopped the truck. From his statement, the version of the prosecution is, prima facie, corroborated. 10. Immediately after the incident, prosecutrix had approached the police whereupon FIR was registered on 19th May, 2018, and soon thereafter, on 20th May, 2018, statements of prosecutrix, under Sections 164 CrPC and 161 CrPC, were recorded. On the basis of CDR, police interrogated Aman @ Ojas and Sachin whereafter Aman @ Ojas and Sachin were summoned and thereafter, petitioner was apprehended from Khanna and was brought to Nahan, where, after preliminary interrogation, he was arrested. 11. Plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no allegation against the petitioner and it is a case of no evidence against him, is not in consonance with the material on record. 11. Plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no allegation against the petitioner and it is a case of no evidence against him, is not in consonance with the material on record. Veracity of the statements and impact of disclosure of half truth by the prosecutrix, at the first instance, and revelation of the entire story before the Magistrate is yet to be considered by the trial Judge. However, prima facie, there is evidence on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act read with Section 34 IPC so as to facilitate the commission thereof and also with regard to an attempt on his part to commit the same offence. 12. As per birth certificate of prosecutrix on record, her date of birth is 25th October, 2001 and at the time of incident, she was 16½ years old. As evident from her statement, she accompanied Sunil and petitioner at her own, but, keeping in view the evidence on record with regard to her age, prima facie, it appears that her consent was immaterial. So far as the alleged role of the petitioner is concerned, he facilitated the violation of the person of the prosecutrix by Sunil and thereafter, tried to compel her to allow her violation by him and Aman @ Ojas also and for pressurizing her, they kept her lower apparels, including inner wear, with them and on refusal to accede to their demand, when prosecutrix jumped out of the truck, even then, her clothes were not returned to her, rather, she was left on the road in the dark night. As per material on record, during investigation, at the instance of the petitioner, sandals/chappals of prosecutrix were recovered from the truck in which the alleged offence was committed and was being driven by the petitioner. 13. Prosecutrix, aged about sixteen years, without her lower apparels, was left alone on the Highway by the petitioner and his companions during dark night hours. 13. Prosecutrix, aged about sixteen years, without her lower apparels, was left alone on the Highway by the petitioner and his companions during dark night hours. Facing such a situation, the trauma suffered by the prosecutrix was more than sufficient to get perplexed to tell half truth to the police, at the first instance, as it was a case where she herself had opted to accompany her friend Sunil, without realizing the consequences thereof likely to be followed on account of the mind set of persons accompanied by her who consider her, being a female, an item for enjoyment, nothing more than that. Such mind set of petitioner and his co-accused, prima facie, is reflecting from their behaviour and manner in which they abandoned the prosecutrix on her refusal to accede to their demand of sexual favour perhaps thinking that in such circumstance, prosecutrix may not dare to report the matter. 14. Further, during investigation, on verification, name of the petitioner was found to be Rohan Singh and the name and address, disclosed by him during interrogation, were not found to be correct. 15. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court from the material on record or otherwise causing the prosecutrix to implicate the petitioner falsely in the present case. It is true that pretrial imprisonment cannot be used as substitute to the punishment without scrutiny of the evidence by the trial Court, but, at the same time, in a case where a girl was abandoned in a situation, as discussed above, grant of bail to the petitioner, at this stage, may also have an adverse impact on the society. Petitioner has a right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but, the provision of reverse onus under Section 29 of the POCSO Act has also to be given due weightage. Balance has to be maintained between the personal and societal interest. 16. Further, challan is pending for consideration of charge before the trial Court and is stated to be listed on 24th September, 2018. Petitioner had also approached learned Sessions Judge for bail by way of application under Section 439 CrPC on 11th June, 2018, which was dismissed on 12th July, 2018 and immediately thereafter, present petition has been filed on 25th July, 2018. Petitioner had also approached learned Sessions Judge for bail by way of application under Section 439 CrPC on 11th June, 2018, which was dismissed on 12th July, 2018 and immediately thereafter, present petition has been filed on 25th July, 2018. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire material on record and has declined to release the petitioner on bail by passing a reasoned order. I find no infirmity or perversity in the order passed by him. From the date of rejection of the bail of the petitioner by learned Sessions Judge till date, there is no change in circumstances and no fresh ground persuading this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge has been pointed out. 17. In view of above, considering cumulative effect of entire facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the apex Court and other factors, like nature of offence, manner in which it has been committed and its impact on the society, petitioner is not entitled for bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.