JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Bail petitioner namely Tilak Raj, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, praying therein for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 68/18 dated 21.6.2018, under Section 354 of IPC and Section 18 of POCSO Act, registered at PS Aut, District Mandi, H.P. 2. Sequel to order dated 20.12.2018, passed by this Court, ASI Joginder Singh, P.S. Aut District Mandi, HP, has come present in Court along with record of the case. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 21.6.2018, complaint came to be lodged at PS Aut, District Mandi, at the behest of the complainant namely Heera Devi (mother of the victim-prosecutrix), who alleged that her minor daughter (victim-prosecutrix), who is studying in clause 9th at Ghaniar School, was forcibly taken to Jungle by the bail petitioner. She alleged that on 20.6.2018, at 4:15 pm when her daughter was going back to her house, a person namely Gopal gave a telephonic call to her husband Chet Ram that his daughter has been taken to Jungle by one boy. After having received telephonic information from her husband, she informed people, who at that time, were working on the spot under MNREGA scheme. Thereafter, they all went towards the jungle to know the whereabouts of daughter of the complainant. They heard the cries of the victim-prosecutrix and ultimately were able to find her in the jungle. On asking, the bail petitioner proclaimed that he can take the victim-prosecutrix anywhere and nobody can stop him. Complainant further alleged that accused also suffered injuries while making attempt to flee from the spot. On the basis complaint, formal FIR as detailed referred herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner on 21.6.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. Challan already stands filed in the competent court of law. Status report filed in the Court reveals that matter is fixed on 7.1.2019, for consideration of the Charge. 4. Mr. On the basis complaint, formal FIR as detailed referred herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner on 21.6.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. Challan already stands filed in the competent court of law. Status report filed in the Court reveals that matter is fixed on 7.1.2019, for consideration of the Charge. 4. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the record/status report vehemently argued that no case, if any, is made out against the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC and Section 18 of the POCSO Act. He further contended that there is nothing to substantiate injury, if any, suffered by the victim-prosecutrix on account of forcible assault, if any, made by the bail petitioner, which clearly suggests that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further contended that bare reading of the statement having been made by the prosecutrix before the police and thereafter before the magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.PC., clearly suggests that she was not forcibly taken towards the jungle by the bail petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel for the bail petitioner contended that challan already stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. While refuting the averments contained in the status report, furnished to this Court with regard to the previous cases registered against the bail petitioner, learned counsel contended that in one case i.e. FIR No. 49 of 2010 dated 20.7.2010, matter stands already compromised, whereas in another FIR No. 7 of 2010, petitioner has already been acquitted and as such, no adverse inference, if any, can be drawn by this Court while considering the application for grant of bail made on behalf of the present bail petitioner. 5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law contended that keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Thakur, contended that record clearly reveals that bail petitioner is habitual of indulging in such like activities, that is why in past also, two cases of similar nature, came to be registered against him. Mr. Thakur, contended that record clearly reveals that bail petitioner is habitual of indulging in such like activities, that is why in past also, two cases of similar nature, came to be registered against him. He further contended that though nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage, but in the event of his being enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of his being indulged in such like activities again and as such, it would be in the interest of justice to not to enlarge him on bail. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner was found to have taken victim- prosecutrix to jungle, but it is not understood that why Investigating Agency failed to get the victim-prosecutrix medically examined so that allegation, if any, with regard to assault, if any, committed by the petitioner on the victim-prosecutrix could have been substantiated. Similarly, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner made an attempt to outrage modesty of victim-prosecutrix. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but this Court having perused material available on record at this stage, sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when guilt, if any, of him, is yet to be proved in accordance with law. As far as registration of previous cases are concerned, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that registration/pendency of previous cases, may not be a criterion or factor for Court to grant or deny the bail, but in the instant case, as has been taken note herein above, bail petitioner has been already acquitted in one of the FIR registered against him, whereas in another, matter stands already compromised. Hon'ble Apex Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382 has held that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the bail petitioner cannot be rejected. Hon'ble Apex Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382 has held that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the bail petitioner cannot be rejected. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: “10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.” 8. Repeatedly, Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held that till the time, guilt of individual is not proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent and in the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. It is well settled that till the time a person is not found guilty, one is deemed to be innocent. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: “2. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in, In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 10. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 12. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI 2017 (5) SCC 218 , The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 13. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.