ORDER : Petitioner is accused in case registered, vide FIR No. 42 of 2021 dated 13.4.2021 at Police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented before the competent Court, which after having taken cognizance, is seized of the matter. Petitioner was arrested on 17.4.2021 and remained in police custody till 22.4.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail, in the above noted case, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’), inter-alia, on the grounds that the victim was above 18 years of age at the time of alleged offence. He has placed reliance on a document, which is a photocopy of the school leaving certificate, purportedly issued by the ‘Innava Public School’ Ganeshpur, District Saharanpur (U.P.) revealing the date of birth of the victim as 25.12.2002. According to petitioner, the victim has been opined to be habitual of sexual intercourse by the medical expert. It has further been stated that no incriminating role of the petitioner has come-forward during investigation, which is complete and hence does not warrant further custody of petitioner. Petitioner has contended that he belongs to respectable family and has roots in the society. Nothing is required to be recovered from him. He is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed. He does not have any past criminal record. 4. On notice, respondent has submitted status report. It has been affirmed that the learned trial Court after having taken cognizance is seized of the matter. The prayer of the petitioner is resisted on the ground that petitioner is a clever person and belongs to other State. In case he is released on bail, there is apprehension of petitioner threatening the witnesses, which may affect the result of the case. It has been submitted that the date of birth of the victim has been found to be 25.12.2005 and thus she was below the age of 16 years on the date of alleged offence. In case he is released on bail, there is apprehension of petitioner threatening the witnesses, which may affect the result of the case. It has been submitted that the date of birth of the victim has been found to be 25.12.2005 and thus she was below the age of 16 years on the date of alleged offence. The evidence to this effect is stated to have been collected by way of record from the Gram Panchayat, Majra, Aadhar Card of the victim and the certificate issued by the Principal, Satya Shri Public School, Pipliwala. As per respondent, the victim has clearly implicated the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as other supplementary statements made by her during investigation. As per her allegation, she was taken to Haridwar and Chandigarh etc. by petitioner where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. 5. The case was registered on 13.4.2021 on the complaint of one Sh. Ram Kishan, uncle of the victim. He had reported that the victim was daughter of his younger brother and was missing since 11.4.2021. On 16.4.2021, father of petitioner had brought the victim at Police Station, Majra, District Sirmaur, H.P. Initially, she did not implicate the petitioner in any offence, but subsequently, as noticed above, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she made narration of facts alleging commission of serious offences against petitioner. She explained that she did not reveal the correct factual position earlier under the threat. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of the status report. 7. The victim, as per the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, was born on 25.12.2005, meaning thereby, the victim was about 15 years 4 months old at the time of alleged offence. The version of petitioner that the victim was more than 18 years of age at the time of alleged offence has not been substantiated by any unimpeachable evidence even for the purpose of prima-facie appraisal of the Court. The copy of school leaving certificate, relied upon by the petitioner, does not inspire confidence for the reasons, firstly, that no effort was made during investigation to get this fact verified through the Police and secondly, the police has collected the certificate from the head of some other school showing 25.12.2005 as the date of birth of the victim. The copy of school leaving certificate, relied upon by the petitioner, does not inspire confidence for the reasons, firstly, that no effort was made during investigation to get this fact verified through the Police and secondly, the police has collected the certificate from the head of some other school showing 25.12.2005 as the date of birth of the victim. In addition, the panchayat record as well as Aadhar Card of the victim also reflects her date of birth as 25.12.2005. 8. Petitioner is stated to be 36 years old, which is a fact that needs to be taken into consideration while assessing the prayer of petitioner. At his age, there can be no mis-apprehension in the mind of a person to make relations with a girl, who had just completed 15 years of age. The conduct of the petitioner is clearly evident of his intent which cannot be said to be honest or bonafide by any stretch of imagination. The petitioner, thus has committed a very serious and heinous offence. Mere fact that he doesn’t have any criminal history will not mitigate his sin, especially keeping in view the fact noticed hereinabove. 9. Another fact which needs to be noticed is that initially the victim refused to implicate the petitioner, but subsequently implicated him by rendering an explanation that she was under threat. There is nothing on record to suggest any plausible reason for false implication of the petitioner in the case. This being so, the explanation rendered by the victim cannot be brushed aside lightly. In this view of the matter, apprehension of respondent that in case of release of petitioner on bail, there is likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence at the hands of petitioner, appears to be genuine. He may pressurize the victim and other witnesses to not to disclose truth before the Court. The trial, therefore, is likely to be affected. 10. In light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. 11. 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. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.