The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a judicious and humane exercise of discretion in bail decisions, imposing strict but reasonable conditions for granting bail, and balancing the interests of all stakeholders.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - A soldier in Indian army aged 24 years, who is in custody for committing forcible sexual intercourse, threat and recording the obscene acts with a lady, when on leave, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail.

2. The police arrested the petitioner on 27.12.2020 in FIR No.42 of 2020, dated 26.12.2020, registered under Sections 376, 506, IPC and Section 66E, IT Act in Women Police Station, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and nonbailable offences.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the victim, who is aged 34 years and a married lady informed the Superintendent of Police against the accused Narender Singh. The allegations against the petitioner are:-

(i) That the victim is a married lady and has two children. However, her husband resides separately from them.

(ii) The accused kept on calling her on her mobile number.

(iii) In August, 2018, the accused visited her home and conveyed his intention to marry and requested her to search a girl for him. She asked him to leave his house, but instead of leaving her house, he started indulging in obscene acts with her and made physical relations with her against her wishes. After that, the accused threatened the victim that in case she informed anyone about this incident of forcible act, then he would kill her and her children.

(iv) After that, on a number of times, he visited the house of the victim and established forcible physical relations with her against her wishes and consent. The accused also established unnatural sexual relations with her. The accused also blackmailed her and obtained various loans in her name. He kept on taking money from her and also established physical relations with her by putting her under fear. He also threatened her in case she revealed the fact of having sexual relations to anyone, then he would inform her husband about the same.

(v) The victim also made detailed allegations against the accused, which are not relevant to decide the present bail petition.

4. I have gone through the status report and heard learned counsel for the parties.

ANALYSIS AND REASONING:

5. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail, if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such persons on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application, and the Courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Balchand, (1977) AIR SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court in Para 16, held that the delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Dat