Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that an FIR No. 11/2023 dated 24.03.2023 was registered at Women Police Station, Baddi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354(c), 376(2)(f) and 506 of IPC. The police arrested the petitioner on 26.03.2023. The investigation has been completed and no recovery is to be effected. The victim is closely related to the petitioner. She made a false complaint at the instance of some interested person. The petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The police filed a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police that the petitioner prepared a nude video of the informant and took some photographs. He showed those photographs and videos to the informant and forced her to enter into a sexual relationship. He sent the photographs and the videos to her relatives and threatened her to upload the photographs and the video on social media. The police conducted the investigation and arrested the petitioner. The police seized the mobile phone. The accused also showed the room of the hotel, where he had maintained sexual relations with the victim, took the photographs and prepared the video. As per the report of analysis, semen was found on the vaginal swabs, vaginal smear slides and underwear of the victim. As per the report of analysis, the DNA profile obtained from underwear and vaginal swabs did not match the DNA of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent.

4. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The report of analysis clearly shows that the DNA from the vaginal swabs did not match the DNA of the petitioner. This falsifies the version of the informant. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.03.2023. The challan has been prepared before the Court and no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the statement of the victim has to be accepted as correct. The victim is a married lady and simply because the semen did not match the accused is not sufficient to falsify her version. The mobile phones have been recovered and sent to the SFSL, Junga. The result from SFSL, Junga is awaited. The offence is heinous; therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059, wherein it was observed as under:-

“12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts has been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

"7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

9. The present case has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

10. The informant specifically stated in the FIR that the petitioner had prepared a video and taken some photographs. He threatened to upload them on social media and entered into a sexual relationship with her. The police have also recovered the mobile phones and these are being examined. The police recorded the statement of Mukesh Bali, who stated that the chat, photographs and video were sent to him on his mobile. This statement corroborates the version of the informant that the petitioner had taken her photographs and he was threatening her with those photographs. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the informant at this stage. The fact that the petitioner had used the photographs and the video of the informant to force her to maintain a sexual relationship shows that the crime was heinous; therefore, the petitioner cannot be released on bail.

11. The petitioner stated in his petition that the victim is related to him; therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the victim, in case of release on bail cannot be ruled out. Since the trial has not commenced; therefore, releasing the petitioner on bail will be prejudicial to the fair trial.

12. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.

13. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.