The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the need to avoid indefinite incarceration without guilt being established, and the principles of bail as outlined in relevant case law.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, who is behind the bars since 30.4.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 28, dated 30.4.2021, under Ss. 452, 376 and 506 IPC registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Status report filed in terms of order dated 6.5.2021, reveals that on 30.4.2021, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Police Station Arki, district Solan, Himachal Pradesh alleging therein that on 26.4.2021, at 11.00 pm, bail petitioner finding her to be alone, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She alleged that though at the time Ashish of alleged incident, her mother-in-law and younger son, Kumar, were in the house but since bail petitioner had threatened her to falsely implicate her younger son in a case, she kept mum and did not disclose the incident to anybody. Victim-prosecutrix also alleged that prior to the alleged incident, bail petitioner also sexually assaulted her against her wishes on 2-3 occasions. In the aforesaid background, FIR in question, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner and since 30.4.2021, he is behind the bars. Investigation reveals that prior to the lodging of FIR in question, wife of the bail petitioner had lodged one FIR No. 27, dated 28.4.2021, at Police Station Arki, against son of the victim-prosecutrix, alleging therein that Ashish Kumar, son of the present victim-prosecutrix, sexually assaulted her minor daughter. After having received aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR No. 27, dated 28.4.2021 against the son of the present victim-prosecutrix under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and since then, said Ashish Kumar is behind the bars. Two days after lodging of FIR No. 27, dated 28.4.2021, by the wife of the present bail petitioner, present victim-prosecutrix lodged FIR in question, against the present bail petitioner, alleging therein that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner against her wishes. Though the Challan in the case at hand is yet to be filed in the competent Court of law, but since the investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail.

3. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to completion of investigation, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but since report of the SFSL, is still awaited, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, who in the event of being enlarged on bail, may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence, as such, his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to lodging of FIR by the wife of the present bail petitioner against the son of the victim-prosecutrix, Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the statement of the victim-prosecutrix under S.161 cannot be ignored, wherein she has levelled serious allegations of sexual assault against the present bail petitioner, as such, present bail petition deserves outright rejection.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that two days prior to registration of FIR in the case at hand, another FIR No. 27, dated 28.4.2021, came to be lodged at Police Station Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, at the behest of wife of the present bail petitioner, against Ashish Kumar, son of the victim-prosecutrix in the present case, under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC and S. 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In the aforesaid FIR, wife of the present bail petitioner alleged that her six year old minor daughter has been se