ORDER : 1. Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No. 31 of 2021, dated 29.10.2021, at Police Station Women Cell at Sadar Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. under Sections 354A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence, Act 2012 (for short “POCSO”) Act. Petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail, in above noted case, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the prosecution case is based on absurd, baseless and imaginary story. As per petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant, who is none other than his wife. It is alleged that the complainant and petitioner have strained matrimonial relation and the complainant has filed a divorce petition against the petitioner, which is pending adjudication. A false case has been foisted against the petitioner, as he is contesting the petition for divorce filed by the complainant. It is further submitted that the incident as alleged had taken place in August, 2021, whereas it was reported in October, 2021 after two months. Had there been any truth in the version of the victim or the complainant, the victim would have disclosed the alleged misdeeds of petitioner to the other residents of the house. 3. Petitioner has further averred that he is permanent resident of Village and Post Office, Lahara, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed against him. Investigation is complete and the challan has also been filed. Petitioner has further undertaken not to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Petitioner has no previous criminal history. Petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, AIR 2005, SC 921, Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830 , State of Kerala vs. Raneef, AIR 2011 SC 340 and Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 382 . 4. In response, the status report has been filed by the respondent. 4. In response, the status report has been filed by the respondent. It is stated that on 29.10.2021, the complainant visited the Police Station with her daughter (victim) and got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. alleging inter-alia, that she was earlier married to Mohammad Yusuf, who had died in 2009. She had two sons and a daughter from first marriage. Her daughter (victim) is 17 years old. In 2014, she married the petitioner, who had turned her out of house since June, 2020. She was residing in a rented accommodation at Mugla. Her elder son Mohammad Hanif and his wife and children were residing in the house of petitioner in a separate room and her daughter (victim) was also residing with the petitioner. On 06.10.2021, the victim abruptly came to complainant at about 8.00 p.m. On being asked about the reason of her visit, the victim did not disclose anything, she, however, started residing with the complainant. The victim used to remain silent and would not disclose anything to the complainant despite being asked repeatedly. On 25.10.2021 the victim wept in front of complainant and disclosed that since August, 2021 the petitioner was harassing her physically and mentally. He used to sleep in the bed of the victim during night and indulged in indecent acts with her. On being objected, the petitioner used to threaten the victim that in case she disclosed the misdeeds of petitioner to anyone, she would be killed and thrown in river Ravi. She was so scared that she kept on suffering the atrocities at the hands of petitioner. On such statement, the case was registered under the aforesaid sections. The statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Petitioner was arrested. On investigation, sufficient evidence was collected against the petitioner and challan was presented. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that petitioner is accused of a very serious offence and in case he is released on bail, there can be a threat to the life of victim. He can also try to win-over the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the status report and also the police file. 6. He can also try to win-over the prosecution witnesses. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the status report and also the police file. 6. It is true that the Court is not to minutely scan the evidence at the stage of adjudication of bail application, still in order to assess the prima-facie involvement of bail petitioner, the material on record cannot be ignored. 7. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashish Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the well settled factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail as under: (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. (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. Petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sections 354A, 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The allegations against the petitioner are of indulgence in aggravated sexual assault against victim, which is punishable with imprisonment of either description of a term, which shall not be less than five years and may extend to seven years. The allegations against the petitioner are of very grave and serious nature. Petitioner is alleged to have indulged in aggravated sexual assault on none else than a minor, who is his daughter. 9. Inhuman acts of committing sexual assault against children (minors), has attracted the attention of all stake-holders including the legislators and, therefore, the provisions relating to sexual assaults on minors have been made very stringent in the Indian Penal Code, besides the enactment of a special Act known as “The Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.” The laudable purpose of such legislations is to protect the children from offence of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography etc. The reason behind enactment of such legislation was the data collected by the National Crimes Records Bureau with respect to ever increasing cases of sexual offence against children. 10. The reason behind enactment of such legislation was the data collected by the National Crimes Records Bureau with respect to ever increasing cases of sexual offence against children. 10. The fact that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and also that the offence charged against the petitioner, if proved, will attract minimum five years of imprisonment of either description, disentitles the petitioner for grant of bail in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Release of petitioner on bail will send a wrong signal in the Society. Immorality germinates crime and deterrence to commission of such evolved crimes is necessary to uphold the rule of law as also to protect the feeble and frail minors. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the statements of complainant and the victim recorded as PW-1 and PW-2, in the Court during the course of trial. Benefit has been sought to be drawn by pointing out certain discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the said witnesses. This Court while dealing with the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence. However, one fact can definitely be noticed from the statements of these witnesses that they have not absolved the petitioner from the allegations levelled against him. 12. It cannot be presumed that merely that the complainant is having strained matrimonial relations with petitioner, the victim will level such serious allegations against her father. 13. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on above noticed judgments, is misplaced, in view of the discussions made hereinabove. 14. Petitioner is not held entitled to bail at this stage, when the prosecution evidence is being recorded. The release of petitioner on bail may adversely affect the trial. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 15. 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.