ORDER : Bail petitioner namely Ramesh Kumar, who is behind bars since 18.8.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 16/2021 dated 25.6.2021, registered at Women Police Station Bilaspur under Ss. 363, 376 and 506 IPC and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. Respondent State has filed status report in terms of order dated 9.9.2021. SI Jyoti has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Careful perusal of status report and record reveals that on 25.6.2021, victim-prosecutrix aged 14 years (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Women Police Station Bilaspur alleging therein that the person namely Sunil Kumar co-accused had been talking to her since January, 2021 on mobile phone. She alleged that in March, 2021, she alongwith her elder sister had gone to Dehar in connection with some work, where she received telephonic call of person, namely Sunil, co-accused, who told her that his brother i.e. present bail petitioner would come to Dehar to take her along, where after she alongwith her sister went to Slapper in the vehicle of younger brother of co-accused Sunil Kumar. She alleged that co-accused Sunil Kumar took her inside the truck and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that while she was being subjected to sexual intercourse by co-accused Sunil Kumar, brother of the co-accused i.e. present bail petitioner, and her sister were standing outside. In the aforesaid background, FIR detailed above came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and co-accused Sunil Kumar and since then both of them are behind the bars. 4. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings, for grant of bail. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of challan in competent court of law states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. While referring to the record, Mr. While referring to the record, Mr. Thakur, Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is ample evidence collected on record by Investigating Agency suggestive of the fact that the co-accused, Sunil Kumar with the help and aid of present bail petitioner sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix taking advantage of her innocence and minority and as such, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner, deserves outright rejection. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that the alleged incident had happened in March, 2021 whereas, FIR came to be lodged on 25.6.2021, after delay of more than 3 months. There is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua the delay in filing the FIR. Victim-prosecutrix has simply stated that since co-accused Sunil Kumar had threatened her of dire consequence, she failed to disclose the alleged incident to her parents and police for three months. Besides above, this court finds that victim-prosecutrix in her statement recorded under s.164 CrPC, stated that she knew co-accused Sunil Kumar since January, 2021 whereafter, she alongwith her elder sister, on the askance of co accused, Sunil Kumar, went to Slapper in the car being driven by present bail petitioner. She stated that co-accused Sunil Kumar took her inside the truck and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. If the statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under S.164 CrPC is examined vis-à-vis her initial statement recorded under S.154 CrPC, it appears that at the time of alleged incident, present bail petitioner and sister of victim-prosecutrix were standing outside the truck. It is highly unbelievable that elder sister of victim-prosecutrix could not hear any noise or cries, if any, made by victim-prosecutrix, while she was being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by co-accused Sunil Kumar, in the truck parked on Barmana-Slapper road. Medical evidence adduced on record also does not support prosecution case. 6. No doubt, at the time of alleged incident, victim-prosecutrix was minor but having taken note of statement given by her to police and Magistrate under Ss. 154 and 164 CrPC respectively, this court finds it difficult to conclude that she was incapable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of co-accused, Sunil Kumar. Moreover, there is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that the victim-prosecutrix of her own volition, joined company of Sunil Kumar with her sister. 154 and 164 CrPC respectively, this court finds it difficult to conclude that she was incapable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of co-accused, Sunil Kumar. Moreover, there is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that the victim-prosecutrix of her own volition, joined company of Sunil Kumar with her sister. As far as present bail petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he behaved indecently or made an attempt to outrage modesty of victim-prosecutrix, rather, the Specific allegation against present bail petitioner is that he helped and connived with main accused Sunil Kumar. But since the statement of the victim-prosecutrix itself suggests that she after having received telephonic call from co-accused went to Barmana in the car of present bail petitioner alongwith her elder sister it can not be concluded at this stage that the present bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence and minority of victim-prosecutrix compelled her to come alongwith him and thereafter, left her with the co-accused. 7. Though the case at hand, is to be decided in the totality of evidence led on record by investigating agency but having taken note of aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this court sees no reason to let bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by of learned Deputy Advocate General that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. 9. 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. 9. 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 been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 13. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to the bail petitioner furnishing 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. Copy dasti.