Point of Law : 8. Complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC.

ORDER :

The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No.42/2022 dated 7.5.2022, under Sections 354 (C), 376, 377, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC & ST Act, registered at Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 7.5.2022, the prosecutrix recorded her statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, wherein she has stated that she is graduate in B. Com Honours. In the year 2021, she came in contact of the petitioner through facebook and after that they disclosed their mobile phone numbers to each other and started talking to each other. On his insistence, she went to meet him, as he has given assurance of solemnizing marriage with her, thereafter, he took her in a vehicle from Gaggal to Sarah road at a secluded place and forcibly committed physical relations with her in the vehicle, during these encounters, he has made her obscene videos, she has not aware about the same. In the month of October, 2021, the petitioner has solemnized marriage and after that she has stopped talking with him, but still he blackmailing her and shown her video clipping and threatened her that in case, she refused to meet him, then, he will make the video viral. On the allegations of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 42/2022 dated 7.5.2022, under Sections 354 (C), 376, 377, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC & ST Act, registered at Police Station Gaggal, District Kangra, was registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant bail application may be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the instant bail petition may be dismissed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.962 of 2022 (SLP (CRL.) No.5326 of 2022) case titled Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan & anr. decided on 14th July, 2022, on this aspect.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Investigation is complete and even challan stands presented in the learned trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for