JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of the bail petitioner namely Shiv Ram for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 170/18 dated 17.7.2018, under Sections 342, 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. In terms of order dated 4.6.2020, ASI Raj Kumar, has come present alongwith records. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Record/status report made available to this Court reveals that on 17.7.2018, complainant namely Sant Ram lodged a complaint at PS Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. alleging therein that his minor daughter victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) has been repeatedly sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Complainant alleged that on 6.7.2018, his minor daughter had got the case under Section 376 IPC registered against a person namely Vikas Kumar at Women Police Station Bilaspur. He alleged that on 6.7.2018, his minor daughter revealed him that when she was studying in class-9, bail petitioner, who is uncle in her relations, repeatedly called her to his tea shop and thereafter, sexually assaulted her. He alleged that on 4.7.2018, bail petitioner called his minor daughter and thereafter, sexually assaulted her. He further alleged that on 5.7.2020, she was sent to her native place from village Malokhar, District Bilaspur, in a three wheeler, but the driver of three wheeler dropped her at Khalsi, from where person namely Vikas took her to Bilaspur and allegedly sexually assaulted her. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR as detailed herein above against the petitioner on 17.7.2018 and since 18.7.2018, he is behind bars. Record further reveals that separate FIR bearing No. 12/2018 dated 6.7.2018, under Sections 363, 376 and 506 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against person namely Vikas at Women Police Station Bilaspur, but he stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 1.8.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Mr. Record further reveals that separate FIR bearing No. 12/2018 dated 6.7.2018, under Sections 363, 376 and 506 and Section 4 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against person namely Vikas at Women Police Station Bilaspur, but he stands enlarged on bail vide order dated 1.8.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 4. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation and filing of challan, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, his application for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly. He further contends that since trial has commenced and 12 witnesses have been examined, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who in the event of his being enlarged on bail may not only flee from justice, but also, may make an attempt to dissuade the remaining prosecution witnesses from deposing against him. While fairly admitting factum with regard to enlargement of person namely Vikas on bail, Mr. Sharma, contends that same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially when it stands duly established on record that bail petitioner, who otherwise happened to be uncle of victim-prosecutrix, had been repeatedly sexually assaulting the victim-prosecutrix since 2018 taking undue advantage of her minority and innocence. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that trial in the case at hand has commenced, wherein statements of material prosecution witnesses including the victim-prosecutrix stand recorded. It is also not in dispute that two separate FIRs have been lodged against the persons namely Vikas as well as the present bail petitioner for the offences alleged to have been committed on the same date i.e. 4.7.2018 that too at different places; one at Bilaspur; and other at village Malokhar. Having carefully perused charge sheet filed by the Investigating Agency in FIR No. 12/2018 dated 7.6.2018, this Court finds that on 6.7.2018, victim-prosecutrix lodged a complaint at Women Police Station Bilaspur, alleging therein that on 4.7.2018, she was forcibly taken to Bilaspur at 11:00 AM by the person namely Vikas on his motorcycle, where he allegedly sexually assaulted her in a hotel named Balaji. As per the complaint made in the aforesaid FIR, victim-prosecutrix was kept in an illegal confinement in the hotel in question for a whole night i.e. 4.7.2018 and she was only permitted to go back to her native place on 5.7.2020. Subsequent to filing of aforesaid FIR, another FIR bearing No. 170 of 2018 dated 17.7.2018, which is subject matter of the present case, came to be lodged at the behest of the father of the victim-prosecutrix, wherein complainant alleged that on 4.7.2018, victim-prosecutrix was called by the present bail petitioner to his tea shop in a village called Mulokhar, District Bilaspur, H.P., and at 2:30 pm, she was sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner. 6. If the version put forth by the victim-prosecutrix in the FIR at hand is perused, it clearly suggests that on 4.7.2018, victim-prosecutrix after having received telephonic call at 6:00 am, went to village Malokhar to meet the bail petitioner, where allegedly at 2:30 pm, she was sexually assaulted by the present bail petitioner. Version put forth by the victim-prosecutrix in the case at hand further reveals that victim-prosecutrix remained in the company of the present bail petitioner in the night of 4.7.2018 at village Malokhar, from where she was sent to her native place on 5.7.2018 by the bail petitioner in a three wheeler, but driver allegedly dropped her at Bilaspur. If aforesaid version put forth by the victim-prosecutrix is presumed to be correct, it completely falsifies her earlier version given in FIR No. 12/2018. If the versions put forth by victim-prosecutrix in both the FIRs are read in conjunction, it certainly creates doubt with regard to correctness and genuineness of the allegations leveled by the victim-prosecutrix against the present bail petitioner. If the MLC adduced on record by the Investigating Agency in FIR No. 12 of 2018 is perused, it also casts serious doubt with regard to allegation leveled by the victim-prosecutrix against the present bail petitioner in the case at hand because in a statement given to the doctors, victim-prosecutrix has categorically stated that on 4.7.2018, she was taken to Bilaspur by person namely Vikas and she was in his company till the morning of 5.7.2018. 7. 7. 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 Investigating Agency, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court, sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when he has already suffered for approximately two years. Moreover, statements of material prosecution witnesses including victim-prosecutrix stand recorded coupled with the fact that person namely Vikas, against whom same allegation has been leveled by the victim-prosecutrix stands enlarged on bail. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand, guilt if any of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, his freedom cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or dissuade the remaining prosecution witnesses, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 unconvicted 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 unconvicted 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 unconvicted 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. 2,00,000/- each 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 violates 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 violates 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. Dasti on usual terms. 2020 (2)ShimLC 1149