ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is accused in case registered vide FIR No. 96 of 2021 dated 30.7.2021 at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Sections 4, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Petitioner is in custody since 07.08.2021 in the above noted case. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of bail, in the above noted case, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) on the grounds that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. She is mother of one Pawan Kumar, who is the main accused in the case. She has been arrayed as accused on the allegation that she despite knowledge that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age, allowed her to stay with her son Pawan Kumar in the house. She also had the knowledge of the rape committed on prosecutrix by Pawan Kumar. 3. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the investigation of the case is already complete and the protracted incarceration of petitioner is not going to serve any fruitful purpose. Petitioner is permanent resident of village Bamsoi (Takoli), Post Office Nagwai, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. She has undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence and is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed in case of her enlargement on bail. 4. On notice, the respondent has placed on record the status report. As per case of the respondent, on 30.7.2021, Pawan Kumar kidnapped the prosecutrix (minor) and committed rape on her. It is alleged that more than once the prosecutrix had accompanied accused Pawan Kumar to his house with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner herein. Petitioner was aware of the fact that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. She despite knowledge of the minority of the prosecutrix allowed her to stay with Pawan Kumar in her house and she also abetted the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 5. I have heard Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also perused the contents of the status report as well as the records of investigation produced by the Investigating Officer present in the Court. 6. 5. I have heard Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also perused the contents of the status report as well as the records of investigation produced by the Investigating Officer present in the Court. 6. It is revealed from the record that even prior to the date of alleged offence, the prosecutrix had accompanied Pawan Kumar to his village and had stayed with him. It appears from the material on record that Pawan Kumar and prosecutrix were known to each other from quite some time. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that she abetted the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, by allowing a minor to stay in her house in the company of her son Pawan Kumar, who had allegedly raped her. It is also alleged against the petitioner that she intentionally failed to report the matter to the authorities under the POCSO Act or to the parents of the prosecutrix. 8. The status report reveals that respondent is relying upon the alleged disclosures made by petitioner during the police custody. No independent and corroborative evidence is stated to have been in possession of respondent to substantiate the alleged offence is against petitioner. It is just an allegation that the petitioner was aware about the age of the prosecutrix and that her son Pawan Kumar had committed rape on the prosecutrix. 9. The status report does not suggest that there is any apprehension of petitioner absconding from the course of justice or influencing the investigation of the case in any manner. It has also not been alleged against petitioner that she is in a position to influence the prosecution witnesses or to otherwise tamper with the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency. 10. Petitioner is a local resident of Village Bamsoi (Takoli), Post Office Nagwai, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, H.P. and there is no likelihood of her absconding from the course of justice. Even the respondent has not expressed any such apprehension about the petitioner. The ends of justice can be served by putting the petitioner to strict terms. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner can potentially influence the prosecution witnesses. 11. Even the respondent has not expressed any such apprehension about the petitioner. The ends of justice can be served by putting the petitioner to strict terms. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner can potentially influence the prosecution witnesses. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No. 96 of 2021 dated 30.7.2021 at Police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Sections 4, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. subject to the following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before the learned Trial Court and shall not intentionally cause any delay in its conclusion. (ii) Petitioner shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing the same in the Court. (iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this bail. (iv) Petitioner shall not leave the Country without express leave of this Court. 12. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. 13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.