JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking his release in case FIR No.157 of 2013, dated 08.08.2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC, Sections 4, 8 and 17 of POCSO Act, and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 08.08.2013, Shri Vinay Kumar (complainant) made a complaint to the police, wherein, he alleged that his daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld) and her friend, another prosecutrix (name withheld) on 01.08.2013, went to school, but they did not return. The complainant raised suspicion that both of them have been taken by someone. On the basis of the complaint so made by the complainant, police registered a case and investigation ensued. The mobile location of one of the prosecutrix was found at Rajkot, Gujarat, and mother of one of the prosecutrix received SMS from prosecutrix, disclosing that she is with one Rozy and Yogesh and they are trapped in a big scam. On 09.08.2013 another SMS was received from one of the prosecutrix and she disclosed that they are coming back. On 11.08.2013 both the girls came back and they were medically examined. During interrogation, one of the prosecutrix divulged that on 01.08.2013 she met Rozy and Yogesh in a restaurant and they were told to accompany them to Rajkot for modeling. Prior to this, another prosecutrix was being allured to come to Rajkot by Rozy. Thereafter, they met one Sunny Walia and they told him that they are going to Rajkot and looking for stay for couple of days. Sunny Walia took them to his village house, where no one was present. They stayed in the said house for 01.08.2013 and 02.08.2013 and on 03.08.2013 one boy, namely, Ankit dropped them at Prormallah and they boarded a bus of Haryana Roadways. Sunny Walia took them to his village house, where no one was present. They stayed in the said house for 01.08.2013 and 02.08.2013 and on 03.08.2013 one boy, namely, Ankit dropped them at Prormallah and they boarded a bus of Haryana Roadways. On the evening of 03.08.2013 they reached Chandigrah and met Arshdeep (petitioner herein, who was telephoned by Ankit. Thereafter, the girls were taken to the flat of Ankit by the petitioner and co-accused Paras. From the said flat they were taken to a disco, where they were made to consume charas and wine. Thereafter all of them went to the house of one Shubham. On 04.08.2013 they remained at Chandigarh and were in constant touch with Rozy. Rozy asked them to come to Delhi, so on 05.08.2013 they went to Delhi and met Rozy and Yogesh. The train, which was booked by Rozy and Yogesh, could not be boarded, so Yogesh went in that train and Rozy took them to Jaipur in a bus. On 07.08.2013 they reached Rajkot and they were made to stay in a flat, where other girls were also present. On suspicion, when the prosecutrix asked as to what is going on, Rozy disclosed that they run a sex racket. When the prosecutrix refused for prostitution, Yogesh told them that they will be given a separate flat. In the interregnum, Rozy received a phone call from Himachal and got perplexed. Rozy told that police got the clue, so on 09.08.2013 Yogesh dropped them in a train to Delhi and also gave Rs.1500/-. The prosecutrix further disclosed that on 10.08.2013 they reached Chandigarh from Delhi. At Chandigarh they met the petitioner and Paras and one of the prosecutrix was sexually molested by Paras. On 13.08.2013 both the prosecutrix were medically examined and one of them divulged that two and four months back she was sexually molested twice by someone and another prosecutrix divulged that she was sexually molested by one Varun Khanna. Statement of one of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on 27.08.2013 co-accused Rozy was arrested. On 28.08.2013 co-accused Sunny Walia and on 29.08.2013 coaccused Ankit Sood were arrested. Both these accused persons were medically examined. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of both the prosecutrix. As per the police, the accused persons took both the prosecutrix with an intention to push them in prostitution. On 28.08.2013 co-accused Sunny Walia and on 29.08.2013 coaccused Ankit Sood were arrested. Both these accused persons were medically examined. Police procured the records qua the date of birth of both the prosecutrix. As per the police, the accused persons took both the prosecutrix with an intention to push them in prostitution. On 12.11.2013 challan was presented in the learned Trial Court and challan against juvenile offender Varun Kumar Khanna has been presented on 05.03.2014, who has been acquitted on 06.09.2018. Accused Rozy, Gaurav and Ankit have been enlarged on bail. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was involved in a serious crime and he evaded his arrest for many years. There is possibility that in case at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice. The petitioner can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so his application be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that accused Rozy, Gaurav and Ankit have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted by this Hon'ble court, so the bail application be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and he evaded his arrested. He has further argued that interrogation and investigation from the petitioner is yet to be conducted, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that interrogation and investigation from the petitioner is yet to be conducted, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required, as he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, so the application be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the statements of the prosecutrix qua the present petitioner, the age of the petitioner at the time of alleged commission of offence, the fact that no allegation of sexual exploitation is against the present petitioner, considering the statements of the prosecutrix before the learned Trial Court, the fact that no allegation has been leveled against the petitioner in the learned Trial Court, the fact that accused Rozy, Gaurav and Ankit have already been enlarged on bail and a juvenile offender has been acquitted by the Juvenile Board, considering the fact that the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation and is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.157 of 2013, dated 08.08.2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC, Sections 4, 8 and 17 of POCSO Act, and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered in Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.