ORDER : The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 22 of 2019, dated 06.07.2019, under Sections 376, 201 IPC and Sections 6, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, registered at Women Police Station Una, District Una, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 05.07.2019 police were informed telephonically from Regional Hospital, Una, where the victim (name withheld), a minor girl, was brought for the treatment. Complainant, Kewal Kumar, father of the victim got recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that his marriage took place in the year 2008, according to Hindu rites and customs with Anjana Devi. Two daughters are born out of their wedlock, elder one is 8 years old and the younger one is 4 years old. He further stated in the complaint that for the last 22 days, his wife left him and started living with bail petitioner, Satish Kumar along with his two daughters. On 05.07.2019, at around 06:00 p.m., when he was coming back from the house of his uncle, his daughter came to him and he noticed that she was walking wide opening her legs, so he asked her as to what had happened. To this inquiry the victim told him that bail petitioner, Satish Kumar took her ‘ PAYAJMI’ off and did something with her private part, so she is having acute pain. Complainant took the victim to the hospital from where, the police were informed. The victim was thereafter referred to RPGMC, Tanda. On 06.07.2019 bail petitioner, Satish Kumar, was arrested. To this inquiry the victim told him that bail petitioner, Satish Kumar took her ‘ PAYAJMI’ off and did something with her private part, so she is having acute pain. Complainant took the victim to the hospital from where, the police were informed. The victim was thereafter referred to RPGMC, Tanda. On 06.07.2019 bail petitioner, Satish Kumar, was arrested. Medical examination upon bail petitioner, Satish Kumar, got conducted by the Medical Officer, wherein he opined that ‘there is nothing to suggest that person is incapable of performing sexual intercourse.’ Mother of the victim allegedly cleaned the blood stained clothes and also cleaned the private part of the victim with dupatta. The said dupatta was taken into possession by the police. Police after registration of the case, effected the relevant recoveries, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses and statements of the victim and the complainant were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 8.7.2019 statement of victim under Section 161 was also got recorded. The underwear of the bail petitioner, Satish Kumar, was also taken into possession. On 9.7.2019 mother of the victim, namely, Anjana Devi, was also arrested in connection with FIR No.22 of 2019 under Sections 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act. 4. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the learned Trial Court on 20.8.2019. As per the medical opinion, blood and semen were not detected on the incriminating articles. Blood was detected on the blood sample on FTA card. Human semen was also detected in the underwear, which was worn by the bail petitioner, Satish Kumar. As per the final opinion given by the Medical Officer, ‘there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or any injury at the time of examination’. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. In case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, at this stage, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. It is prayed that at this stage, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, minutely. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, minutely. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the bail petitioner has committed heinous crime and in case, at this stage, if he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and also may flee from justice. It is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. According to the status report, the case is now listed on 8.7.2022 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. 8. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, as he is permanent resident of the place. To buttress his arguments, he has submitted that the investigation is complete and even challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose, or whatsoever. Moreover, nothing qua sexual intercourse upon the victim has come on record in the medical opinion. It has been argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last almost three years and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. 9. Consequently, at this stage, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the bail petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail, as he can tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice. 9. Consequently, at this stage, considering the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence, the bail petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail, as he can tamper with the prosecution evidence and also flee from justice. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove, are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.