ORDER :

Bail petitioner namely Girish, who is behind bars since 19.8.2021, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 31/21 dated 18.8.2021, registered at WPS Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (w), 3 (2) 5 of the SC& ST Act.

2. Pursuant to order date 29.9.2021, respondent-state has filed the status report. Additional Superintendent of Police Mr. Ashok Verma, Solan is also present with the records. Records perused and returned. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 18.8.2021, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), lodged a complaint at WPS Solan, alleging therein that she is in relation with the bail petitioner for the last two years. She alleged that the bail petitioner proposed her for marriage and thereafter kept on sexually assaulting her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage. She alleged that she became pregnant twice but bail petitioner compelled her to get the child aborted. She also alleged that the bail petitioner asked for the gold ornaments, enabling him to take loan so that he establishes his business. She alleged that she besides giving her gold, also gave money in cash to the bail petitioner, but now he refuses to marry her. She alleged that since she belongs to SC category, petitioner is not marrying her and as such, she is under immense tension and pressure. She also alleged that prior to filing of the FIR at hand, she had also filed a complaint at Women Police Station, but she was forced to arrive at settlement with the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, as FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner on 18.8.2021 and since then, he is behind the bars. Prior to fling of the petition at hand, bail petitioner had approached the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, but such plea of him for grant of bail was rejected. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further submits that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of innocence of the victim-prosecutrix not only sexually assaulted her against her wishes but also extorted money from her and as such, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on this record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix was known to the bail petitioner for the last more than two years and during this period they had developed intimate relationship. Interestingly, as per the statement given by the victim-prosecutrix to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC., she was subjected to the sexual intercourse against her wishes on 22.4.2021 and 30.4.2021, at Win Sum Hill hotel and in a room of the bail petitioner, but FIR at hand came to be lodged on 18.8.2021, i.e. after three and half months of the alleged incident. There is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua the delay in lodging the FIR. Similarly, this court finds that victim-prosecutrix after lodging of the FIR was asked to get medically examined, but she refused to undergo the same and as such, there is no medical evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the present bail petitioner. In the case at hand, victim-prosecutrix alleged that on two occasions, she became pregnant and present bail petitioner compelled her to abort the child, but investigation reveals t