JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner, Hari Singh alias Kaku, who is behind the bars since 27.11.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 338, dated 16.11.2018, under Ss. 363, 366, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 376, 376D and 511 IPC and Ss. 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Status report filed in terms of order dated 14.5.2020 is on record, perusal whereof reveals that on 16.11.2018, complainant, who happens to be the mother of the victim-prosecutrix, (name withheld), lodged a missing report in the office of Superintendent of Police, Mandi, stating therein that on 16.11.2018 her minor daughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix reached late at her residence at Mandi and on enquiry, she revealed that she was with her friend. Complainant alleged that after some time, her minor daughter told her that she is going to washroom but she never returned back. Subsequently, complainant recovered mobile phone and found that her minor daughter is in contact with some unknown person. Taking clue from the information shared by the complainant in the missing report, Police started the investigation on the basis of CDR and Tower location of mobile number supplied by the complainant. Police recovered the victim-prosecutrix from Gokalpuri, New Delhi from the house of the co-accused Joginder Singh and Vikas, who happened to be father and son. On 26.11.2018, police after getting the victim-prosecutrix medically examined, also got her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mandi, wherein she alleged that on 13.11.2018 and 15.11.2018, bail petitioner i.e. Hari Singh alias Kaku and other co-accused, Bhanu Pratap sexually assaulted her in her room and in the shop against her wishes. She also alleged that on 15.11.2018, bail petitioner called her in his shop and there he alongwith Bhanu Pratap raped her against her wishes. Victim-prosecutrix also alleged before the Magistrate that with effect from 17.11.2018 till 20.11.2018, co-accused Joginder sexually assaulted her against her wishes whereas, another co-accused namely Vikas tried to outrage her modesty. In the aforesaid background, Police registered a case against the bail petitioner and other co-accused named herein under Ss. 376D and 511 IPC and Ss. 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In the aforesaid background, Police registered a case against the bail petitioner and other co-accused named herein under Ss. 376D and 511 IPC and Ss. 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It emerges from the status report that the co-accused Vikas, Bhanu Pratap and Joginder stood enlarged on bail. Accused namely Joginder and Vikas were enlarged on bail by learned Special Judge below and accused Bhanu Pratap was ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court in CrMP(M) No. 179 of 2020 decided on 26.2.2020. Presently bail petitioner is behind the bars since 27.11.2018. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly stating that the Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency rather the bail petitioner needs to be dealt with severely as such, petition may be rejected outrightly. Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General further contends that though statements of victim-prosecutrix and her mother (complainant) stand recorded in the learned trial Court but still a number of material prosecution witnesses remain to be examined as such, this Court may not consider the prayer for grant of bail by the bail petitioner at this stage. While making this Court peruse the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded by learned trial Court, Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General contends that there is ample evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix against her wishes taking undue advantage of her minority and innocence. Mr. Bhatnagar further contends that though there is ample evidence on record that bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix but even otherwise, consent, if any, of a minor is of no consequence. 4. Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, learned counsel for the bail petitioner, while refuting aforesaid submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General contends that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated as such, he cannot be allowed to remain behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial, especially when other co-accused, who have been charged with the same offence, stand enlarged on bail. While making this Court to peruse the statements of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Ss. While making this Court to peruse the statements of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC juxtaposing her statement recorded before learned trial Court, Mr. Dhiman made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions as such, same cannot be relied upon. Mr. Dhiman, further contends that at the time of alleged offence, victim-prosecutrix was 17 years and 8 months old and as such, it cannot be said that she was incapable of understanding the consequences of her joining the company of the bail petitioner and other co-accused. Lastly, Mr. Dhiman, contends that there is no explanation worth the name available on record suggestive of the fact that the victim-prosecutrix ever made an attempt to raise hue and cry or report the matter to the Police or her parents despite there being sufficient opportunities. Lastly, Mr. Dhiman contends that since the statements of material prosecution witnesses including victim-prosecutrix stand recorded, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner in custody, who has already suffered for more than one and a half year. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that other co-accused, who have been charged with same offences, stand already enlarged on bail. If statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under S.164 is read juxtaposing the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded before learned trial Court, this Court finds force in the contention of Mr. Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of victim-prosecutrix and complainant. Statements, if are read in conjunction juxtaposing each other, same clearly suggest that the victim-prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the bail petitioner and they had been meeting each other frequently. If the version put forth by the victim-prosecutrix that firstly on 13.11.2018, she was sexually assaulted by bail petitioner in her room against her wishes is presumed to be correct, there is no explanation on record that why she again on 15.11.2018, on the askance of the bail petitioner and other co-accused, Bhanu Pratap, went to the shop of bail petitioner, where she was allegedly again sexually assaulted by bail petitioner and Bhanu Pratap. If the cross-examination conducted upon the victim-prosecutrix is perused minutely, it clearly reveals that on 15.11.2018, immediately after alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix went on foot to the residence of the bail petitioner but she made no attempt to raise hue and cry. She has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the path leading to the residence of the bail petitioner goes by the side of ITI and in front of the Police Station, Sadar, Mandi. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not make any complaint to the Police against the bail petitioner and Bhanu Pratap, while passing through the gate of the Police Station. She has also admitted that there are several shops and houses by the side of the path leading to the residence of the bail petitioner. Leaving everything aside, it is own case of the prosecution that after alleged incident on 15.11.2018, victim-prosecutrix alongwith co-accused Bhanu Pratap, went to her residence to collect her documents. As per statement of the complainant, on 15.11.2018, victim-prosecutrix had come late and thereafter she went missing from the washroom. If the version put forth by the victim-prosecutrix that she was asked by the bail petitioner and co-accused Bhanu Pratap to bring her documents from the house is believed, it is not understood that what prevented her from disclosing such fact to her mother, who was present at the residence at the relevant time. If the entire statement of the victim-prosecutrix is read, it clearly emerges that after aforesaid alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix, while going to Delhi also stayed in the house of the sister of co-accused, Bhanu Pratap, but even at that juncture, she did not make any attempt to disclose the factum with regard to her kidnapping/abduction by bail petitioner and co-accused- Bhanu Pratap to the sister of co-accused, Bhanu Prataqp. Preciesly, the allegation of the victimprosecutrix is that bail petitioner alongwith other co-accused, Bhanu Pratap compelled her to solemnise marriage with some person at Sarkagaht, but since said person was already married, the proposal could not materialize. Statement of the victim-prosecutrix further reveals that she was taken to court complex for swearing an affidavit but since she was minor, advocate attending upon her refused to execute the same. Statement of the victim-prosecutrix further reveals that she was taken to court complex for swearing an affidavit but since she was minor, advocate attending upon her refused to execute the same. As per victim- prosecutrix, she was made to sit in a Volvo bus by bail petitioner and other co-accused Bhanu Pratap from Mandi to Delhi, meaning thereby that while performing journey between Mandi and Delhi, victim-prosecutrix was all alone. She has also stated that since her Aunt lives in Chandigarh, she wanted to get down there, but she could not do so on account of the fact that constant vigil was being kept on her by some stranger sitting in the bus. It has come in the statement of the victim-prosecutrix that while she was performing journey from Mandi to Delhi, she was having a mobile phone, allegedly given to her by bail petitioner and as such, it is not understood why she did not make any call to her parents or to friends to disclose her whereabouts. If the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court, especially cross-examination is perused minutely, it clearly emerges that the victim-prosecutrix of her volition, without any external pressure, remained in the company of the bail petitioner and other co-accused. Statement of the victim-prosecutrix clearly reveals that she got various opportunities to disclose her illegal confinement, if any, by the bail petitioner and other co-accused, Bhanu Pratap but for the reasons best known to the victim-prosecutrix, she kept mum. Cross-examination of victim-prosecutrix nowhere suggests that bail petitioner and co-accused, Bhanu Pratap compelled her to solemnise marriage with some other person at Delhi, rather, she of her own volition and without there being any persuasion made by bail petitioner went to Delhi in Volvo bus after having collected documents from her house. It has come on record that on 25.11.2018, medical officer was informed that victim-prosecutrix has been physically assaulted by one person, whereas, specific allegation in the complaint was that on 15.1.2018, victim-prosecutrix was sexually assaulted against her wishes by two persons and interestingly, there is no mention, if any, with regard to assault, if any, made by bail petitioner on 13.11.2018. 6. 6. Having carefully gone through the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded by the Police, before the Magistrate and the one recorded by learned trial Court, this Court is unable to persuade itself to buy the story of the prosecution that the victim-prosecutrix alongwith Bhanu Pratap took undue advantage of the minority of the victim-prosecutrix who admittedly at the time of alleged incident was 17 years and 8 months old. No doubt, consent, if any of a minor is immaterial but having taken note of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, especially the conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, this Court is unable to conclude that the victim-prosecutrix was incapable of understanding her well being and she was kidnapped /abducted by the victim-prosecutrix and other coaccused. 7. Though the aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the learned trial Court in the totality of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency but having taken note of the fact that the other co-accused charged with same offence, stand already enlarged on bail, coupled with the fact that the statements of victim-prosecutrix, complainant and other material prosecution witnesses stand recorded, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than one and a half year. Though in the case at hand, around 20 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined but they are all official witnesses, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in case bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions 8. 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 held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "2. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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." 9. In Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation,2012 1 SCC 49 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that 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. 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. 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 also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, 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 Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail i.e. prima facie case against the accused, nature and gravity of offence, severity of punishment, likelihood of repeating of the offence by accused etc. 12. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate available at the station, besides the 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. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, held by him. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.