Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.43 dated 4.4.2022 registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 (lateron Sections 376, 506, 323 IPC added) at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of family members of the victim. He submits that ASI Baldev Singh made a statement in the Court on 22.4.2022, wherein, he stated that the petitioner Manjeet Singh has not been nominated in the case. He submits that the victim and the co-accused Surinder Singh filed CRWP-3263-2022 seeking protection of life and liberty, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.4.2022. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has illegally rejected the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner and hence, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

3. Heard.

4. Evidently, the FIR in question has been lodged by the father of the victim on 4.4.2022 alleging therein that when the daughter of the complainant i.e. the victim alighted from the bus, then a car came from behind in which some young boys, namely, Surinder Singh, Davinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Ranjit Singh, allured his minor daughter on the pretext of marriage and she was taken to some unknown place. FIR was lodged to take legal action against the accused. On the commencement of investigation, co-accused Surinder Singh was arrested and the victim was also recovered. After getting her medically examined, she was produced before the learned Magistrate and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She specifically deposed that co-accused Surinder singh had ravished her. She deposed that accused Manjeet Singh i.e. the petitioner forcibly taken her to Hon'ble High Court by putting her under fear and pressure and she was forced to sign papers. Offence under Sections 376/506/323 IPC were added lateron vide DDR No.51 dated 22.4.2022. Admittedly, the victim was about 16 years 8 months old at the time of occurrence. She has specifically deposed about the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence. For consideration of pre-arrest bail, the Court is to keep into mind the statutory provisions of Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. Hon'ble the Apex Court in plethora of judgments also reiterated time and again to take into consideration these parameters like the gravity of the offence, chances of accused tampering with the evidence and probabilities of fleeing from justice etc. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State represented by CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 [LQ/SC/1997/1203] has held as under:-

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

5. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of statutory parameters and law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that the petitioner do not qualify for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction in his favour, hence, the present petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.