ORDER : The bail application, i.e. Cr. MP(M) No. 1072 of 2022, has been maintained by petitioner (Rinku Kumar) under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail, whereas bail application, i.e. Cr. MP(M) No. 1196 of 2022 has been maintained by the petitioner (Balo Ram) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail, in case FIR No. 70/2022, dated 22.04.2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, they are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 22.04.2022 father of the prosecutrix, made a complaint to the police, alleging therein that the prosecutrix, who is 16 years of age and studying in 10th standard, did not come home last night and he has apprehension that someone has took her away. During investigation, it was unearthed that the prosecutrix used to talk with Rinku Kumar (petitioner in Cr. MP(M) No. 1072 of 2022) over telephone. Accordingly, the police team went in search of the prosecutrix and found her at Village Sararka, in the house of petitioners. During further investigation, the involvement of the father of the petitioner, Balo Ram (petitioner in Cr. MP(M) No. 1196 of 2022) in taking the prosecutrix with them, against her wishes, was also found. Consequently, FIR No. 70/2022, dated 22.04.2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, came to be registered against the petitioners and the investigation ensued. Petitioner, Rinku Kumar, was arrested on 24.04.2022. During investigation, Balo Ram disclosed that he and his son had forcibly took the prosecutrix with them. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and also tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were involved in a heinous crime and there is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice and also tamper with the prosecution evidence. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police reports, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has argued that petitioner, Rinku Kumar is 22 years of age and having love affair with the prosecutrix and entire story of prosecution that he kidnapped the prosecutrix and raped her, is concocted. He has further argued that the petitioner, Rinku Kumar, is behind the bars since his arrest and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has argued that keeping in view the material, which has come on record, and also the age of Rinku Kumar, the bail application be allowed. As regards petitioner Balo Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and as he is joining and cooperating in the investigation, he may be released on bail. 6. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a heinous offence, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed. 7. At this stage, considering the age of petitioner, Rinku Kumar, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the fact that petitioner, Rinku Kumar and prosecutrix were known to each other, so possibility of love affair cannot be ignored, role of petitioner, Balo Ram in the alleged incident, the fact that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the conditions of bail, if so granted. So, considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage and also the fact that petitioner, Rinku Kumar, cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that petitioner, Rinku Kumar, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 70/2022, dated 22.04.2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., be released on bail, in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court and petitioner Balo Ram, who is apprehending his arrest in the same case, be released on bail, in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner(s) will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioner(s) will join investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (iii) That the petitioner(s) will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv) That the petitioner(s) will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of. Copy dasti.