JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner, Golu alias Govind Kumar, who is behind the bars since 8.1.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.482 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 5, dated 25.1.2021, under Ss. 363, 366A, 120B, 376 and 506 IPC and S. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondents-State has filed status report in terms of order dated 19.5.2021, perusal whereof reveals that on 25.1.2021, mother of the victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), filed a complaint at Police Station Pachhad, District Sirmaur, alleging that her minor daughter, aged 15 years, has gone missing and she has apprehension that a person namely Amit has made her daughter elope with him on the pretext of marriage, as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against above named person. In the aforesaid background, police registered case under Ss. 363 and 366A IPC against the person namely Amit. Subsequently, on the basis of Call Detail Record, Police apprehended present bail petitioner namely Golu alias Govind Kumar from Rewari, Haryana. Bail petitioner disclosed to the police that the person namely Amit had come to him alongwith victim-prosecutrix and he had told the complainant, who happened to be the mother of the victim-prosecutrix that her daughter and co-accused Amit have solemnised marriage. In the aforesaid background, present bail petitioner came to be named in the FIR detailed herein above and since 8.1.2021, he is behind the bars. On the basis of aforesaid information shared by the bail petitioner, Golu alias Govind Kumar, police found that a person namely Nitish, who happened to be the brother of Amit, had called the bail petitioner Golu to Delhi, from where they sent Amit and victim-prosecutrix to Bihar. Precise allegation against the present bail petitioner is that he helped the main accused, Amit, in the commission of offence punishable under Ss. 363 and 366A IPC. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that the another person, Surender, who allegedly helped the main accused, Amit, stands enlarged on bail, present bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under the changed circumstances. 363 and 366A IPC. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that the another person, Surender, who allegedly helped the main accused, Amit, stands enlarged on bail, present bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under the changed circumstances. Record reveals that prior to filing of the petition at hand, bail petitioner had filed petition before learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, but his prayer was rejected vide order dated 24.1.2021, on the ground that the bail petitioner may flee from justice in the event of his being enlarged on bail, as he hails from the State of Bihar. 3. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of Challan, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Thakur, Learned Deputy Advocate General, while admitting that other co-accused, Surender, who had helped the main accused, Amit, in the commission of offence punishable under Ss. 363 and 366A IPC, stands enlarged on bail, states that though no allegation qua sexual harassment/assault has been levelled against the bail petitioner by the victim-prosecutrix, but since investigation clearly reveals that the present bail petitioner had connived with the main accused, Amit, who, taking undue advantage of innocence of victim-prosecutrix, repeatedly sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as such, prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the precise allegation against the bail petitioner is that he helped the main accused, Amit, in making the victim-prosecutrix elope with him. Since the bail petitioner traveled with the main accused, Amit, from Nahan to Jhajar, Haryana, he came to be named in the FIR registered against him. Admittedly, this is none of the case of the prosecution that the bail petitioner made any attempt to sexually assault the victim-prosecutrix, who, of her own volition, with the intention to solemnise marriage with Amit, fled from her house. 5. Admittedly, this is none of the case of the prosecution that the bail petitioner made any attempt to sexually assault the victim-prosecutrix, who, of her own volition, with the intention to solemnise marriage with Amit, fled from her house. 5. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the record that the victim-prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the main accused, Amit and she, of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, went with Amit to Bihar to solemnise marriage. The allegation that the present bail petitioner helped /connived with the main accused, Amit, in the commission of offence alleged to have been committed by the main accused, needs to be established/proved on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution. As per status report, present bail petitioner sent the victim-prosecutrix alongwith main accused, Amit, to Bihar, from Delhi, however, statements of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC, nowhere reveal that present bail petitioner compelled her to accompany the main accused, Amit. Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, there appears to be no justification to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when, guilt, if any, of the him is yet to be established on record. Since, the other co-accused in the similar facts and circumstances stands enlarged on bail, it would not be fair and in the interest of justice to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Deputy Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. Hon'Ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation,2012 1 SCC 49 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. 8. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the 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. 9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 10. 9. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 10. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed and the bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.