The presumption of innocence until guilt is proven and the general rule of bail over jail were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner namely Chet Ram alias Deepak, who is behind the bars since 17.3.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in FIR No.61 of 2018, dated 16.3.2018, under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC, registered at police Station, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Sequel to order dated 7.8.2018, ASI Prem Singh, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report suggests that the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ''prosecutrix''), who is 32 years old lady, lodged a complaint with the police at Manali on 16.3.2018, alleging therein that the bail petitioner,who knows her for the last 10 years, gave her a call at 7:30 PM in the evening and pressurized her to solemnize marriage with him. She further alleged that bail petitioner started weeping/crying and at 12:30 AM arrived at her house in a vehicle, whereafter she alongwith petitioner went to Manali and stayed at Hotel Kilimangaro ( Room No.103). As per the prosecutrix, she alongwith bail petitioner arrived at aforesaid Hotel at 1:45 AM, whereafter they stayed in room No.103 and also developed physical relations. Allegedly, at 6:30 AM in the morning bail petitioner while leaving the prosecutrix in the Hotel went out on the pretext that he has to call person namely, Sunny, but fact remains that he never came back, as a consequences of which, FIR detailed hereinabove, lodged against the bail petitioner at the behest of the prosecutrix. Police arrested the bail petitioner on 17.3.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of Law.

4. Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, vehemently argued that no case, if any, under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC is made against the bail petitioner, because it is quite apparent that prosecutrix, who was known to the bail petitioner for the last 10 years, joined the company of bail petitioner of her own volition and without there being any pressure from the bail petitioner and as such, bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Palsra, further contended that apart from above, medical evidence led on record, nowhere suggests that bail petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix against her wishes because there is no mention, if any, of marks and resistance on the body of the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra, further contended that bare perusal of the MLC adduced on record, nowhere reveals that human blood and semen, if any, was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Lastly, Mr. Palsra contended that both prosecutrix and bail petitioner had prior acquaintance and they actually wanted to solemnize marriage, but same could not be materialized on account of opposition of parents of the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra, further stated that as per instructions imparted to him, bail petitioner is still ready to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra argued that since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. He further stated that bail petitioner is local resident of the area and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice, rather he shall make himself available for investigation and trial as and when called by the investigating agency.

5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, opposed the prayer hav