JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition has been filed by the bail/applicant/accused, under, Section 439 Cr. P.C., wherethrough, he seeks indulgence, of his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, whereat, he stands extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Sections 377, 323, 506 IPC, and, under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, borne in case FIR No. 129 of 2017, registered with Police Station, Kotkhai, District Shimla. 2. The victims/minors, who were subjected, to, offences borne in the provisions of Section 377 of the IPC, have not yet stepped into the witness box, given one of them, not being traceable. However, even if, upon theirs' stepping into witness box, though, they yet support their previously recorded statements, (a) nonetheless, efficacy thereof, at this stage, prima-facie, may be blunted by the factum of the Doctor concerned, who immediately, subsequent to the afore offences, being committed upon the victims, hence subjected them to medical examination, rather upon his stepping into the witness box, as PW-4, though, in his examination-in-chief, makes a disclosure, qua his making an opinion, qua there being nothing to suggest that the persons, so examined, not undergoing sexual act, (b) yet when in his cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, he has acquiesced, to, suggestions put thereat, qua clinically nothing emanating hence suggestive, of, commission of the act of sodomy, upon the victims, (c) given erected penis releasing juices, and, possibility, of, occurrence thereof, on the bodies of the victims, being an imminent sequel, to the afore act, being perpetrated, on, the persons of the minors/victims. However, with his further making a disclosure, in his cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, that the afore juices, were not observed by him, during, the course of his, immediately subsequent to the occurrences, hence subjecting the victims to medical examination, to rather hence occur, on their respective persons, (d) and when the Public Prosecutor concerned, thereafter, hence did not proceed to, with the permission of the Court, hold a further cross-examination, of the afore witness, for hence eliciting from him, any answer to any suggestion, qua upon, his conducting the medical examination of the victims, he had asked the victims whether they had washed their persons, (e) nor when any echoing, in consonance therewith, is, borne in the apposite MLC. Consequently, for want thereof, it, prima-facie, appears that the offences attributed, qua the bail-applicant, do not, carry the relevant tenacity, (f) moreso, when, at this stage, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, that in the event of bail being granted to the bail-applicant, there is hence every likelihood of the bail-applicant fleeing from justice, or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon, this Court is constrained to make an order that the bail-applicant be released from judicial custody, however, subject to compliance, with, the hereinafter extracted conditions:- (i) That the bail applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned. (ii). That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. (iii). That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. (iv). That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (v). That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. (vi). That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. (vii) That upon his re-indulging in criminal activities, it shall be open to the respondent, to move this Court for cancellation of bail. 3. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.