ORDER : Bail petitioner namely Sunil Kumar, who is behind the bars since 8.11.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 354/21 dated 7.11.2021, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 04 and 16 of the POCSO Act. 2. Pursuant to order dated 27.12.2021, respondent-state has filed the status report. SI Rajat Rana, PS Balh, is also present with the records. Records perused and returned. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 7.11.2021, complainant Prakash Chand, lodged a complaint at PS Balh, alleging therein that his daughter i.e. victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), who is 17 years old and student of BA, 1st year, at 9:00 am, had gone to college at Mandi, but when she did not return to home till 5:00 pm, he contacted her friend Ms. Neha. Complainant alleged that he has come to know that the bail petitioner Sunil Kumar has made his daughter to elope with him. When he tried to contact the bail petitioner on his phone number, bail petitioner informed that he has solemnized marriage with her. Complainant alleged that since bail petitioner has made the victim-prosecutrix, who is minor, to elope with him, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against him. Before action, if any, on the aforesaid complaint could be taken by the police, complainant on 8.11.2021 telephonically informed the Police Station Balh that victim-prosecutrix has come back and he shall bring her before police on the next day. On 9.11.2021, victim-prosecutrix joined the investigation, but refused to undergo medical examination. She categorically stated to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rati, that she does not want to undergo medical test and she of her own volition had gone with the present bail petitioner to Manali. However subsequently, victim-prosecutrix again presented herself before Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Rati for medical examination and claimed that she had gone with the present bail petitioner to Manali and there, she was forcibly sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner. Police also got statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC, wherein she stated that she of her own volition had gone to Manali with the bail petitioner and there she was compelled to solemnize marriage by the bail petitioner. Police also got statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC, wherein she stated that she of her own volition had gone to Manali with the bail petitioner and there she was compelled to solemnize marriage by the bail petitioner. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation is complete and challan is likely to be filed, prayer has been made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. Mr. Sharma, states that though there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence of minority of the victim-prosecutrix not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but also extended threats to her, but even otherwise consent, if any, of victim-prosecutrix being minor is immaterial and as such, prayer made in the instant petition for grant of bail deserves to be rejected outrightly. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on this record, especially, statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner had prior acquaintance and they had been meeting and talking to each other for the last 3-4 years. As per victim-prosecutrix, she had developed some liking for the bail petitioner, who wanted to solemnize marriage with her, but since parents of both the persons was opposed to their marriage, proposal of marriage could not be materialized. Since parents of victim-prosecutrix fixed the marriage of victim-prosecutrix with some other person, she became upset and came to Mandi to meet the bail petitioner, from where they both went to Manali. As per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, they solemnized marriage in a Hotel room at Manali and thereafter, she fell ill and as such, was taken to hospital. Since parents of victim-prosecutrix fixed the marriage of victim-prosecutrix with some other person, she became upset and came to Mandi to meet the bail petitioner, from where they both went to Manali. As per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, they solemnized marriage in a Hotel room at Manali and thereafter, she fell ill and as such, was taken to hospital. There is no specific mention, if any, in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, with regard to forcible sexual intercourse allegedly committed by the bail petitioner upon the victim-prosecutrix, rather she has simply stated that wrong has been committed upon her and as such, appropriate action be taken against the bail petitioner. 5. Interestingly, at the first instance, victim-prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination and claimed before the doctor that she of her own volition had gone to Manali with bail petitioner, but subsequently, on 12.11.2021, during her medical examination disclosed to the doctor that she was beaten by her parents. She claimed that bail petitioner solemnized marriage with her and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Though medical officer has opined that possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out, but MLC, if perused in its entirety, nowhere suggests any, external or internal injuries. 6. Leaving everything aside, after having carefully perused statement made by the victim-prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC, coupled with the fact that she herself at the first instance, refused to undergo simple imprisonment, this court has reason to presume and believe that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure joined the company of the bail petitioner and thereafter, both solemnized marriage at Manali, but subsequently under the pressure of the her parents deposed against the bail petitioner. Though learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that victim-prosecutrix was minor and bail petitioner taking undue advantage of her innocence and minority sexually exploited her against her wishes, but having taken note of the conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, which is apparent from her statements, this Court does not agree with the aforesaid submission of learned Deputy Advocate General, rather this Court is convinced and satisfied that victim-prosecutrix, who at that relevant time, was 17 1/2 years old was capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of the bail petitioner, who wanted to solemnize marriage with her. Though case at hand is to be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency, but having taken note of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, there appears to be no reason for this court to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, during trial, especially, when investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from him. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent till the time, guilt of his/her is not proved in accordance with law. In the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the accused is yet to be proved in accordance with law, by leading cogent and convincing material on record. Apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of petitioner’s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions as has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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.” 9. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI, 2017 (5) SCC 218 , The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat 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 a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 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. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 , relevant para whereof has been reproduced herein below:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. 11. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 , relevant para whereof has been reproduced herein below:- “11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 ; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616 ) Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 ). 12. 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 a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, 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. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, 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/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. 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 application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.