The Court considered the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone as factors justifying the grant of bail, while imposing stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing the investigation and tampering with evidence.

ORDER

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation J. - The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for establishing sexual relation with a female aged 30 years and belonging to Scheduled Caste community, under the false promise of marriage, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail on the ground that he is innocent.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 439 CrPC before the concerned Special Judge. However, vide order dated 12.1.2021, Learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, HP, dismissed the petition.

3. In Para 8 of the bail application, the petitioner declares having no criminal history. The status report also does not mention any criminal past of the accused.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner, which led to the registration of the FIR, mentioned above, are that on 7.11.2020, the Police official received a written complaint from the victim. She complained that accused Dinesh Kumar stayed with her for four years under the promise of marriage and continued to have sexual relations during this entire period on uncountable numbers. After that he also promised the victim to solemnize Court Marriage in the year 2021, however, discreetly engaged with some other girl. When confronted, he told the victim that such engagement was because of the family pressure and he was unhappy with the same. Even after that he continued to have coitus with her. He would also give her contraceptive pills. Last time, he established coitus with her on 1.11.2020.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family.

6. While opposing the bail, the alternative contention on behalf of the State is that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

7. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

8. The age of the victim is 30 years. She continued to have coitus with him for four years. Even when she came to know that he has been engaged with some other girl, she believed him and continued to have sex with him. Such conduct would not justify further incarceration of the petitioner.

9. An analysis of entire evidence does not justify further incarceration of the accused, nor is going to achieve any significant purpose. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the stage of the investigation and the period of incarceration already undergone would make out a case for bail.

10. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes out a case for release on bail.

11. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to strict terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

12. In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM No 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

13. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the Police Station conducting the investigation, and in case of non-availability, any Ilaqa Magistrate. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned Magistrate must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such suretie