JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. Petitioner, Makhan Din has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’], originating from FIR No.260 of 2023, dated 22.08.2023, under Sections 363, 368, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’], registered with Police Station [Sadar], District Chamba [H.P.]. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The case set up by Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocates, is that a complaint was got registered at the behest of one Smt. Mir Bibi on 22.08.2023, leading to the registration of FIR No.260 of 2023 in Police Station [Sadar], Chama, District Chamba [H.P.], alleging that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] and Alam had kidnapped their daughter [X], aged 14 years, on 19.08.2023 during day time. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant [Mir Bibi] came back to her home, for lunch, as she was employed in MNAREGA, she was told by her younger daughter that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] and his brother Alam had kidnapped her daughter [X], by muffling her mouth and then by putting her forcibly in a vehicle. It was also stated in the FIR that the complainant [Mir Bibi] tried to contact her daughter on phone, but, she did not respond. In view of this, despite the fact that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] is the son-in-law of Mir Bibi, yet, the instant FIR was got registered against the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has no connection with the alleged offence. It is further averred in the bail petition that the investigation is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the bail petitioner. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has undertaken to cooperate with the Investigating Agencies and not to cause any inducement, threat or promise to the witnesses in any manner. It is further averred that no fruitful purpose will be achieved by curtailing the liberty of the bail petitioner, by keeping him in jail. It is further averred that no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or under the POCSO Act, is made out. It is further averred that no fruitful purpose will be achieved by curtailing the liberty of the bail petitioner, by keeping him in jail. It is further averred that no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or under the POCSO Act, is made out. The bail petitioner has further stated that he had filed a Bail Application No 251 of 2023, on 22.12.2023 before the Learned Special Judge, Chamba [H.P.], but the same was dismissed on 16.01.2024 [Annexure P-1]. The bail petitioner has further averred that the instant case is a result of vindictiveness at the instance of the complainant, who has some ill- will against her son-in-law i.e. the bail petitioner and it is in this background that the false accusation and false case has been registered against him. In this background, it is prayed that the bail petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Upon issuance of notice on 26.02.2024, the State Authorities were directed to file reply/status report. The matter was then listed on 11.03.2024, when, the Status Report, on the instructions of Incharge/ SHO, Police Station [Sadar], Chamba, District Chamba [H.P.] dated 06.03.2024 was filed in the Court. Thereafter, on the prayer made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioner, the matter was listed on 11.03.2024, so as to enable the parties to have look at the status report and the matter was listed for consideration on 26.03.2024. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES: 4. A perusal of the Status Report reveals the contents of FIR No 260 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023 and as per the prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by the complainant [Mir Bibi] that his son-in-law i.e. instant bail petitioner {Makhan Din} and his brother had come to their house on 19.08.2023, when, the complainant [Mir Bibi] had gone for employment being a laborer in MNERAGA. During lunch hours, when, she came to her house on 19.08.2023 at around 01:00 p.m., her younger daughter told her that the bail petitioner and his brother had forcibly muffled her 14 years old daughter{victim-X} and put her inside a vehicle, without the consent of either the complainant and without the consent of her daughter [X]. 4(i). The status report further reveals that the victim [X], aged about 14 years i.e. daughter of the complainant [Mir Bibi] was recovered from Village Gunupur, Post Office Sandowal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur [Punjab] on 02.09.2023. 4(i). The status report further reveals that the victim [X], aged about 14 years i.e. daughter of the complainant [Mir Bibi] was recovered from Village Gunupur, Post Office Sandowal, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur [Punjab] on 02.09.2023. It is further revealed in the status report that the statement of victim [X] was recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and videography of recording of the statement was also done. It is further averred in view of the statement made by victim [X], minor daughter of the complainant [Mir Bibi], the offences under Section 368, 376, 120- B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, were added to in the accusation. On 03.09.2023, the victim [X] was taken for medical examination. The status report further reveals that on 04.09.2023, the statement of victim [X] was recorded before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chamba, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The status report reveals that the bail petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2023 from Chamba. It has come in the status report that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] is the resident of Village and Post Office Chakdayala, Tehsil Samba, District Jammu & Kashmir and it has also come in the status report that one Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, a resident of Samba [Jammu & Kashmir] to whom the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] had handed over the victim [X] on way to Jammu, is still absconding till day. 4(ii). At the time of hearing, on 26.03.2024, the Learned State Counsel has placed on record the copy of FIR No. 260 of 2023, dated 22.08.2023; the Statement of victim [X], aged about 14 years, recorded under Section 161 & Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Medico Legal Certificate and Final Medical Opinion were also placed on record. A perusal of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 04.09.2023 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chamba, reveals the accusation against the bail petitioner. The aforesaid statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure points out that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] came to her house when, the victim [X] was washing her clothes. The aforesaid statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure points out that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] came to her house when, the victim [X] was washing her clothes. It has also been deposed in the statement that the bail petitioner muffled the mouth of the victim [X] and forcibly drove her inside the vehicle. The statement further deposes that on the way to Jammu one Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, met the bail petitioner, who took the victim [X] to his house, where she was illegally confined for 4-5 days. The statement of victim [X] further reveals that she was kept in confinement during night and thereafter Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, left the victim [X] at the house of Makhan’s [bail petitioner’s] sister, namely, Yatun. It has also come on record that at the place of residence of Makhan’s sister, namely, Yatun, the bail petitioner, during the night, had taken the victim [X], in a separate room, where the water motor was installed and at that place, the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] resorted to unwarranted activities with the victim [X]. The Learned State Counsel has also placed on record the copy of “Final Medical Opinion”, pointing out that the “possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out”. In this background, the Learned State Counsel has prayed for dismissal of the bail petition. 5. Heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh and Mr. Karan Veer Singh, for the bail petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for Respondent -State. LEGAL PROVISIONS: 6. In order to appreciate the claim of the bail petitioner, it is necessary to have the recap of the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Sections 361, 363, 368, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which read as under:- “Section 439 Cr.P.C. 439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct- (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified : Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application. (1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376 DA or section 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. Section 361 IPC:- 361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.__ Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation- The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. Exception- This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose. Section 363 IPC:- 363. Punishment for kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 368 IPC:- 368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement. Section 120B IPC: 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy._ (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. 376 IPC:- Punishment for rape- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2)commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine (2) Whoever, (a) being a police officer, commits rape— (i) within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house; or (iii) on a woman in such police officer's custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or (b) being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant's custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or (c) being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women's or children's institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home place or institution ; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or (g) commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or (h) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; (j) commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or (k) being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or (l) commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or (m) while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or (n) commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation; For the purposes of this sub-section, (a) “armed forces” means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any law for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government or the State Government; (b) “hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation; (c) “police officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression “police” under the Police Act, 1861 (5 of 1861); (d) “women's or children's institution” means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. (3) Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.] Section 4 of POCSO Act: 4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault. (1) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 2[ten years] but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.] Section 6 of POCSO Act: 6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.] Section 6 of POCSO Act: 6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death. (2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim. Section 17 of POCSO Act: 17. Punishment for abetment.- Whoever abets any offence under this Act, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, shall be punished with punishment provided for that offence. Explanation;- An act or offence is said to be committed inconsequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment.” 7. In the background of the statutory provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., the claim of a suspect-accused is to be examined within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , mandating that the bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in the case of Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01. 7(i). 7(i). While dealing with the case for grant of regular bail, under Section 439 Cr PC, the three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters, has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559 , in Para 25 that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim for bail. 7(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under: 11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including: (i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence; (ii) The severity of punishment; (iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not; (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/witnesses; (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings; (vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence; (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice; (viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail; (ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge; (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC, as the case may be. 7(iii). In CBI versus Santosh Karnani, (2023) 6 SCALE 250, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the illustrative time-tested broad parameters which are required to be taken into account while considering the prayer for bail; which have recently been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085. 8. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 439 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in the crime needs to be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein above. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, though a Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public /state. In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the merits, as it may prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution. ANALYSIS: 10. On considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and keeping in view the mandate of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] is not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail, at this stage, for the following reasons: - 10(i). Prima facie, the contents of FIR No 260 of 2023 dated 22.08.2023 and the Status Report dated 06.03.2024 and the documents placed on record by the Learned State Counsel, during the course of hearing, on 26.03.2024, including the statement of victim [X] recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., before the jurisdictional Court on 04.09.2023, points out the prima-facie accusation and reasonable grounds against the bail petitioner. On combined reading of the aforesaid material reveals that the mouth of the victim [X], aged 14 years, was initially muffled and the fact that she was then forcibly taken out of the lawful custody of her parents, without their consent; and even without the consent of victim [X] on 19.08.2023, whereafter she was taken towards Jammu. On way to Jammu, one Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad met the bail petitioner, who thereafter took the victim [X] to his house and thereafter she was kept in the house of Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad for 5-7 days and thereafter she was left at the house of the bail petitioner’s sister, namely, Yatun, where she remained for about 3-4 days. The material on record reveals that it was at the place of the sister of the bail petitioner, namely, Yatun, the bail petitioner had sexually assaulted the victim [A], during the night. The material on record, also indicates, that the victim [X] was kidnapped forcibly, from the lawful guardianship of the parents and even without the consent of victim [X] from Village Pandah in District Chamba [H.P.] towards Jammu (Jammu & Kashmir). The material on record, also indicates, that the victim [X] was kidnapped forcibly, from the lawful guardianship of the parents and even without the consent of victim [X] from Village Pandah in District Chamba [H.P.] towards Jammu (Jammu & Kashmir). On way to Jammu, the bail petitioner met Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, who then took the victim [X] to his house at Samba [Jammu & Kashmir] where victim [X] was kept for 5-7 days, contrary to her wishes as the alleged victim was kept under confinement i.e. in a locked room, during the night. Even the status report reveals that Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, as referred to above, left her at the house of the bail petitioners, sister namely, Yatun, where the bail petitioner [Makhan Din], during the night, committed unwarranted acts, with the victim [X], as referred to above. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that the accusation under Section 376 IPC, which is based on the statement made by the victim before the police also stands corroborated by the medical evidence, suggests at this stage to show that the accusation under Section 376 IPC is prima-facie is made out against the bail petitioner {Makhan Din}. While dealing with a bail application, relating to offence under Section 376 IPC, it has been mandated that complete go by to the allegation made in the FIR and statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as also the testimony of the prosecutrix before the jurisdictional court cannot be ignored, in terms of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2023 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl. No.6199 of 2023)], titled as Bhagwan Singh Versus Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and another alongwith connected matter, which reads as under:- “25. The complainant’s grievance, through-out has been that Deepak had been threatening the prosecutrix and other witnesses and that there is every possibility of threat to their life in the event they depose to the truth, and such apprehension is justifiable, especially because accused is in a domineering position. The complainant underlines the influence and possibility of the clout being wielded on the witnesses which cannot be discounted. The complainant underlines the influence and possibility of the clout being wielded on the witnesses which cannot be discounted. The fact that even after recording of the deposition of the prosecutrix other prosecution witnesses have not come forward to tender evidence though more than nine dates of hearing has passed, would lend credence to the apprehension of the complainant. The High Court seems to have erred in not considering these basic facts while considering the prayer for grant of bail by taking into consideration the well-established judicial pronouncements already noticed hereinabove. That the court framed charges, prima facie discloses the possibility and reasonable suspicion of the accused prima facie culpability. 26. The Courts have placed the liberty of an individual at a high pedestal and extended the protection to such rights whenever and wherever required. In the same breadth, it requires to be noticed that emphasis has also been laid on furnishing reasons for granting while balancing it with the requirement of a fair trial bail even though such reasoning may be brief. 27. In the aforesaid circumstances, we notice that the impugned order granting bail is not only bereft of material particulars which would justify grant of bail, but it seems that the High Court has got swayed on the ground of delay and the video having not been recovered during the course of investigation and has given a complete go by to the allegation made in the FIR and statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. as also the testimony of the prosecutrix before the jurisdictional court.” In the background of the above facts and the gravity of the offence, whereby, the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] had kidnapped and then resorted to unwarranted sexual assault on a girl of 14 years, points out towards ill intention and even statement of victim [X] point out towards the accusation under Sections 361, 363 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code against the bail petitioner, when, the bail petitioner was kidnapped without her consent and without the consent of the lawful guardianship of such a minor girl, by forcibly muffling her mouth and then forcibly taking her in a vehicle towards Jammu. So far as the allegations under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act are concerned, this Court is of the considered view that prima-facie accusation, s borne out from the statements of the victim [X] under Section 161 and her statement under Section 164 CrPC made by the victim before the jurisdictional Court coupled with and the Final Medical Opinion given by the Medical Experts, stating that the “possibility of sexual assault, cannot be ruled out”, cannot be ignored at this stage. 10(ii). So far as the accusation under Section 363 and 368 IPC is concerned, the investigation undertaken by the State Police Authorities, which is borne out from the status report including the statement of the victim [X] made before the Learned Jurisdictional Court, points out towards the accusation against the bail petitioner for the reason, that firstly, the mouth of the victim [X] was muffled and therefore, she was forcibly taken out of the lawful guardianship of her parents, was forcibly put in a vehicle; was then taken towards Jammu; and on the way to Jammu the victim [X] was handed over to one Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, who met the bail petitioner on the way and thereafter the victim [X] was kept under unlawful detention at the house of Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad for 5-7 days till the victim was shifted/taken to the house of the bail petitioner’s sister Yatun, where she was again detained/kept for 3-4 days and the alleged unlawful activities of sexual assault were committed with the victim at her sisters house, by the bail petitioner. In these circumstances, the reasonable grounds points out towards the accusation against the present bail petitioner to be based on reasonable grounds, at this stage. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the prima-facie accusation and reasonable grounds point out against the bail petitioner [Makhan Din], as referred to above. 10(iii). The relief for bail, cannot be exceeded to in view of the gravity of offence and seriousness of the allegations, as referred to above, against the bail petitioner. 10(iv). 10(iii). The relief for bail, cannot be exceeded to in view of the gravity of offence and seriousness of the allegations, as referred to above, against the bail petitioner. 10(iv). The plea of the bail petitioner, cannot be exceeded to, at this stage, for the reason, that as per Status Report, when, one of the co-accused, namely, Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, who had taken a minor girl of 14 years, at the instance of the bail petitioner [Makhan Din] to his house at Samba, where she was confined for 5-7 days contrary to her consent and illegally, is still absconding. In case the present bail petitioner is released, then there is every likelihood that the bail petitioner will threaten either the victim [X] or the Complainant [Mir Bibi] or other family members. At the same time, this Court, cannot ignore the fact, that release of the bail petitioner [Makhan Din], will aid the absconder, co-accused Hazi Bashir @ Bashir Mohammad, to indulge in further unlawful/illegal activities/offences against the victim [X] or the complainant [Mir Bibi] or their family members. In case the bail petitioner, is released/enlarged on bail, then, there is every apprehension of the justice being throttled by the bail petitioner and there is every likelihood that the victim [X] or the complainant [Mir Bibi] or their family members may be given any inducement, threat or there is every likelihood of tampering with the witnesses or the person(s) directly or indirectly associated with the aforesaid matter. The averments made in Para-3 of the bail petition, placing a distorted story, cannot be the basis for exceeding to the prayer for grant of bail, when the contents of the FIR, the Status Report, Statement of the Victim recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. including the Final Medical Opinion, points out towards prima-facie accusation, against the bail petitioner, which are based on reasonable grounds, as referred to above. 11. In addition to the discussion so made hereinabove, even the Learned Court below i.e. the Learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba [H.P.] has rightly dismissed the claim for enlargement on bail on 16.01.2024 [Annexure P-1], by a reasoned order, which needs to be upheld in view of the reasons detailed therein. 12. 11. In addition to the discussion so made hereinabove, even the Learned Court below i.e. the Learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba [H.P.] has rightly dismissed the claim for enlargement on bail on 16.01.2024 [Annexure P-1], by a reasoned order, which needs to be upheld in view of the reasons detailed therein. 12. Given as above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter and the claim of the bail petitioner for enlargement on bail, is without merit, at this stage, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Any observations made herein-above, shall not be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case in any manner and these observations are made only, for the disposal of the instant bail application. 14. As aforesaid, the instant petition and all applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.