JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Bail petitioner namely Sumit, who is behind bars since 21.07.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.117 of 2025, dated 20.07.2025, under Sections 65 (1), 137 (2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNS’) and Section 6 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ACT, 2012 (hereinafter ‘POCSO Act’), registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Rajesh Kumar has come present with record. Investigating Officer states that in terms of order dated 28.01.2026, victim-prosecutrix was apprised with regard to pendency of the present petition, but she has stated that she has settled the matter with the present bail-petitioner. 3. Close scrutiny of status report as well as record made available to this Court reveals that on 20.07.2025, complainant, namely ABC, lodged a complaint at PS Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that her minor daughter (name withheld to protect her identity) had gone missing. She alleged hat at 08:00 p.m., her daughter told her that she was going towards shop, but when she did not return within half an hour, she went towards shop and found that her daughter had gone towards the park. She alleged that despite her best efforts, she was unable to find out the whereabouts of her daughter. She alleged that while she had come to the Police Station to lodge the missing report of her daughter, she received a telephonic call from telephone No.97364-89948 and person namely Ajmil i.e. co-accused informed her that he had dropped her daughter near her house. She alleged that her daughter, who had returned home, disclosed to her that co-accused namely Ajmil along with one person namely Sumit i.e. bail-petitioner, who happens to be uncle of the co-accused Ajmil, had taken her to Chimbalhar park, from where she was taken to a room at Bheer. She alleged that allegedly person namely Ajmil sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against person involved in the crime. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and the co-accused Ajmil. She alleged that allegedly person namely Ajmil sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against person involved in the crime. In the afore background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and the co-accused Ajmil. Since co-accused Ajmil, who allegedly sexually assaulted victim-prosecutrix against her wishes, already stands enlarged on bail being juvenile, whereas bail-petitioner, who had accompanied the aforesaid co-accused to the place of incident, is behind bars since 21.07.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Mr. Panwar, states that bail-petitioner abetted the crime by taking victim-prosecutrix as well as co-accused Ajmil on his scooty. He further submitted that while victim-prosecutrix was being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the co-accused Ajmil, bail-petitioner remained mute spectator. He submitted that since bail-petitioner has been booked under Section 17 of POCSO Act and there is ample evidence against him of his having committed the offence of abetment, prayer made for grant of regular bail deserves to be rejected. He submitted bail-petitioner cannot claim party with the co-accused, who admittedly at the time of commission of offence was juvenile. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court finds that no specific allegation of sexual assault, intimidation or threats, if any, has been made against the bail-petitioner, rather victim-prosecutrix has categorically stated that she had come in the contact of co-accused Ajmil through Instagram and since then, they have been meeting each other. It also emerges from her statement that she was taken to the room at Bheer by Ajmil and thereafter, subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by him. There is no specific allegation of sexual intercourse against the present bail-petitioner. It also emerges from her statement that she was taken to the room at Bheer by Ajmil and thereafter, subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by him. There is no specific allegation of sexual intercourse against the present bail-petitioner. It is true that the scooty used to take the victim-prosecutrix to the field was owned by the mother of the bail-petitioner. Even if it is presumed that bail-petitioner had taken victim-prosecutrix along with co-accused to the field, his complicity in the commission of offence is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 17 of POCSO Act, which reads as under:- “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 in consequence 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.” 6. Explanation of aforesaid provision of law clearly suggests that an act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is carried out due to instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment. Admittedly, in the case at hand, scooty used to take the victim-prosecutrix to the field was being driven by the present bail-petitioner, but whether he instigated the co-accused to commit an offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act or hatched conspiracy, is a question, which needs to be dealt by the learned trial Court in totality of evidence to be led on record by the prosecution. Moreover, this Court finds that during pendency of the case, victim-prosecutrix has already entered into compromise with the bail-petitioner (Annexure P-4). Though having taken note of fact that victim-prosecutrix is a minor, as such, compromise, if any, arrived at her behest is of no consequence, but certainly contents of the same further prove that no harm of any kind was ever caused by the bail-petitioner to the victim-prosecutrix. Though having taken note of fact that victim-prosecutrix is a minor, as such, compromise, if any, arrived at her behest is of no consequence, but certainly contents of the same further prove that no harm of any kind was ever caused by the bail-petitioner to the victim-prosecutrix. There is nothing on record to suggest that bail-petitioner ever compelled victim-prosecutrix or threatened her to join the company of the co-accused, rather she of her own volition joined the company of the co-accused and thereafter, both went on the scooty driven by the present bail-petitioner. Though case at hand is to be decided by the learned trial Court in totality of evidence, but having noticed aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail-petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner and challan already stands filed in the competent Court of law. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating  officer  or  is  hiding  due  to  some  genuine  and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the learned trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.