JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 110 of 2018 dated 1.11.2018 registered at Police Station Tissa under Sections 341, 323, 354-B, 376, 511, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 2. Status report stands filed and record is produced, perusal whereof indicates that on 1.11.2018 mother of victim has lodged a report with the Police Station against the petitioner that one Narayani had asked her daughter to stay on the way with her on the pretext of some work and on asking her daughter about the work, petitioner Mano, who was present there, had caught hold the arms of her daughter and asked her to marry with him with threatening that if she did not agree, he would not leave her, whereupon her daughter tried to free herself from the clutches of Mano and during scuffle with Narayani and Mano, the clothes of her daughter were torn and due to push by Mano, her daughter had fallen, resultantly she had received injuries on her head, wherefrom the blood was oozing. Whereupon, her daughter had raised noise, but no one had come forward from nearby place and thereafter Pawan Kumar had reached on the spot, causing Mano to flee away from the spot, and her daughter was saved by Pawan Kumar and Ramesh and who told her about the happening, whereupon, she and her husband had reached on the spot. 3. The statement of victim has also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she, in addition to the statement made by her mother, has stated that Mano had snatched her mobile phone and taken her forcibly to the adjacent vacant house of Chamaru Ram and had closed her mouth and asked her to marry with him and on her refusal, he had pushed her resulting into injuries on her head and he had tried to ravish her after tearing her shirt and trying to opening her trouser (salwar). Whereupon she had cried and on hearing cries, her uncles Pawan Kumar had reached there, whereupon Mano had run away from the spot. 4. The allegation in complaint was that Narayani and Mano had wrongfully restrained their daughter and had beaten her and has caused the injuries to her. Whereupon she had cried and on hearing cries, her uncles Pawan Kumar had reached there, whereupon Mano had run away from the spot. 4. The allegation in complaint was that Narayani and Mano had wrongfully restrained their daughter and had beaten her and has caused the injuries to her. As per statement of victim, Narayani Devi had asked her to stay with her as she intended to give her clothes for stitching and therefore, she stood at the spot and Narayani had gone to bring the clothes and thereafter Mano had arrived there. 5. The petitioner had also applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, but he has rejected the same vide order dated 11.12.2018. The entire discussion taken into consideration by learned Special Judge is on the basis of plea taken by the petitioner therein at that time. The petitioner had sought the bail on the ground of parity that co-accused Narayni had already been released on bail by the Court. For the different role of two accused persons, the learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail application filed on the ground of parity. On perusal of order passed by learned Special Judge, it does not reflect that any other point had ever been raised before him at that time. 6. Statements made by mother as well as victim are to be subjected to scrutiny by the trial Court during the trial. Therefore, I am refraining from commenting thereupon and however, keeping in view the nature of allegations, it would be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available before the trial Court on each and every date as and when required; (ii) That the petitioner 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 Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (ii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the trial; (iii) That he shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh without information and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, if any, from the present place of residence, in advance, to P.S. Tissa. (v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected. (vi) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 7. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 8. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 9. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013. Petition stands disposed of. 10. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.