JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Sequel to order dated 9.8.2021, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.14 of 2021, dated 27.07.2021, under sections 376, 354(a),(c),(d), 292, 294 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police Station, Mahila Police Thana, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. SI Vidya Sagar has also come present alongwith the record. Record perused and returned. 2. Status report/record reveals that on 13.8.2021, victim/ prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity), lodged a complainant at Mahila Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., disclosing therein that she is student of 10th class and her date of birth is 1st June, 2003. She alleged that one year back bail petitioner finding her alone at home sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She stated before the police that though she had raised hue and cry, but since none was around, nobody came forward for her help. She alleged that after the alleged incident bail petitioner threatened her that in case she disclosed this incident to anybody, he would make video of alleged incident made by him viral. She alleged that after two months of first incident bail petitioner again finding her alone sexually assaulted her and despite her repeated requests, failed to delete the video from his phone. She alleged that on 25th July, 2021, bail petitioner misbehaved indecently with her, however he after having seen her Uncle Chanan Singh, fled away from the spot. She alleged that bail petitioner keeps stalking her with the intention to tarnish her image and he has also written bad words about her on the walls of the houses in the village. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner, who pursuant to order dated 8.9.2021 has already joined the investigation. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for confirmation of interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021. 3. Mr. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for confirmation of interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2021. 3. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by the petitioner, submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that since at the time of alleged offence age of the victim/prosecutrix was less than 18 years, consent, if any, of her, is immaterial and as such, present petition may be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that incident allegedly happened/occurred one year prior to lodging of the FIR, but no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the delay in filing the FIR. Though, in the initial complaint victim/prosecutrix claimed that after three months of first incident, she was again subjected to sexual intercourse by bail petitioner, but there is no material available on record suggestive of the fact that attempt, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of victim/prosecutrix, who at that relevant time was 17 years old to lodge the complaint either with the Gram Panchayat or with the police, rather she kept on waiting till filing of the FIR, which is subject matter of the present case. If the statement of the victim/prosecutrix made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is red in its entirety, it can safely be inferred that victim/prosecutrix had prior acquaintance with the bail petitioner and she wanted to solemnize marriage with him. Since, age of the victim/prosecutrix was less than 18 years, proposal of her marriage with bail petitioner could not be materialized. After one year of alleged incident, FIR came to be instituted and explanation rendered on record qua the delay is not worth credence. 5. Since, age of the victim/prosecutrix was less than 18 years, proposal of her marriage with bail petitioner could not be materialized. After one year of alleged incident, FIR came to be instituted and explanation rendered on record qua the delay is not worth credence. 5. On 13th August, 2021, learned counsel representing the petitioner informed this Court that victim/prosecutrix and petitioner herein has already decided to marry each other and today during the proceedings of the case, victim/prosecutrix alongwith her father and Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Nawada, have come present. Father of the victim/prosecutrix has made available one Nikhanama, perusal whereof reveals that on 17th August, 2021 victim/prosecutrix, who has now turned 18 years has solemnized marriage with the petitioner. Investigating Officer present in Court fairly admits that victim/prosecutrix has turned 18 years and as such, is entitled to solemnize marriage. Since, alleged incident is of one year prior to filing of the FIR, medical evidence adduced on record is of no relevance, perusal whereof otherwise discloses no case against the petitioner. Similarly, father of the victim/prosecutrix also states before this Court that marriage interse petitioner and her daughter i.e. victim/prosecutrix stands solemnized. Smt. Mehraj Khatun, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who is also present in Court states before this Court that marriage interse petitioner and victim/prosecutrix was solemnized on 17.8.2021. Since, petitioner has already solemnized marriage with the victim/prosecutrix and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, this Court sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. By now it is well settled that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. In the case at hand, the guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved, in accordance with law. 7. 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 freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved, in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No.2 to 5 of the 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 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation,2012 1 SCC 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." 10. 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. 11. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 9.8.2021 passed by this Court, is made absolute, 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 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. 12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his 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. 13. 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. 14. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. 15. Copy dasti.