JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Present Application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information No.133 of 2020, registered at police station Raiwala, District Dehradun. 2. Applicant is in judicial custody under Sections 363, 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. As per the prosecution case, informant’s daughter left home on 08.10.2020 at around 5 a.m. When she did not return, a search was undertaken. Prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the applicant and the applicant was arrested. According to the prosecutrix’s High School Certificate, collected during the investigation, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 30.06.2004. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein she stated that she loved the applicant. She stayed with him in a Dharmsala in Shimla. Her physical relationship was established with him on 11.10.2020. Upon conclusion of the Investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate, contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. Prosecutrix (PW1) has deposed in her evidence that the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was given by her. Prosecutrix’s father (PW2) has deposed that the date of birth certificate was not prepared and at the time of lodging the First Information Report, he had mentioned the age of the prosecutrix as 18-19 years. He further deposed that he did not even furnish the copy of the Pariwar Register to the prosecutrix’s school. The date of birth of the protecutrix recorded in her High School Certificate is found to be entered without any basis. Therefore, there is a serious dispute in regard to the authenticity of the date of birth, recorded in the High School Certificate of the prosecutrix. 5. Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate, further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is in judicial custody since 13.10.2020, whereas, the prosecution has examined only five witnesses out of ten witnesses till date. 6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application. He is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is in judicial custody since 13.10.2020, whereas, the prosecution has examined only five witnesses out of ten witnesses till date. 6. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, has opposed the bail application. However, he has fairly conceded that the applicant has no criminal history and the prosecution has examined only five witnesses till date. 7. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 8. The Bail Application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant - Sagar Thapa be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. 10. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, Prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.