Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 95/2021, dated 20.04.2021, registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, HP, under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 342 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘IPC’ for short) and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20th April, 2021, an FIR was lodged on the basis of a statement of the prosecutrix against the petitioner on the allegations that on 16.04.2021, she visited the Grameen Bank at Leda for the purpose of opening a bank account alongwith her son. She could not open the account as bank officials refused to open the same. Thereafter, while she was waiting for the bus at the bus stop, the petitioner arrived at the bus stop in his Jeep and stated that he could help the prosecutrix in opening the bank account. The bank account was opened, and thereafter, the petitioner told the prosecutrix that as the bus had already left, he would drop her at her village in his vehicle. On the way to the village of prosecutrix, at some distance, an old person also boarded the Jeep of the petitioner, who alighted from the vehicle near Sarua Jungle. Thereafter, at around 6:30 p.m., the petitioner forcibly took the petitioner into Sarua Jungle and outraged her modesty against her will in the Jungle. The prosecutrix was then taken by the petitioner in his vehicle to different places entire night, where she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused without her consent. She was also intoxicated by the petitioner as he had offered some juice to her, which probably contained intoxicants. She gained her consciousness on 17.04.2021 at around 6:00 a.m. and was successful in running out from the confinement of the petitioner. On 17.04.2021, she had a headache and was not in her proper senses. Thereafter, on 20.04.2021, she narrated the entire story to her god brother Suneel Kumar. It is in this background that the FIR in question was registered, leading to the arrest of the petitioner on 21.04.2021.

3. The petitioner had approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, by way of bail application No. 60 of 2021, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stood dismissed by the learned Court below vide order dated 25.05.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. Learned Counsel further argued that as the investigation is complete and challan has also been filed in the Court, and therefore, no purpose is going to be achieved by detaining the petitioner in custody, as no recovery etc. is to be effected from him, and further in the event of release of the petitioner on bail, he shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed upon him by the Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner happens to be the local resident of District Mandi and his entire family is settled there. He further submitted that there are no chances of the petitioner jumping the bail, and thus, frustrating the trial. He further submitted that as per the prosecutrix, the alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 16.04.2021-17.04.2021, whereas the FIR was lodged on 20.04.2021 and there is no reasonable explanation coming forth as to why there is delay in lodging the FIR.

5. Opposing the bail petition, Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it will not be in the interest of justice to release the petitioner on bail as there is each and every possibility that in the event of release on bail, the petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence or may try to influence the prosecution witnesses and thus can throttle the trial. He has also argued that release of the petitioner at this stage may have an adverse impact on the prosecutrix also. On these bases, he has submited that the bail petition of the petitioner be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the status report as well as FSL report, which has been made available to the Court by the learned Additional Advocate General.

7. Having perused the status report as also the FSL report and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered view of the Court, now when the investigation is complete, no purpose is going to be solved by detaining the petitioner in custody, as admittedly, now no recovery etc. has to be effected from him and challan also stands filed in the Court. As far as the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, in my considered view, this is a matter of trial and it will be in the interest of justice, in case, this Court does not makes any observation in this regard.

8. Accordingly, in view of the above narrated facts that the investigation etc is complete and challan has also been filed in the Court of law, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 95/2021, dated 20.04.2021, registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, HP, under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 342 of the IPC and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on his furnishing personal bail bond to the tune of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall 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;

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise 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

iv) He shall not leave the territory of this Country.

9. It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with any of the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Copy dasti.