JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 211/2023 dated 03.10.2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Boileauganj, Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 354(A) & 506 of IPC. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally vague. The informant is threatening the petitioner to file a false complaint against him, in case, he failed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to her. The informant is the business partner of Mr. Anuj Singh. The petitioner had entered into an agreement with the wife of Mr. Anuj Singh. She issued a cheque to the petitioner but it was dishonoured. The petitioner filed a complaint against her. The informant filed a false case against the petitioner in connivance with Anuj Singh. The petitioner will join the investigation. He will abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petition.

2. The petitioner is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police against the petitioner stating that she had issued an advertisement regarding the lease of a hotel and restaurant in old Manali. Anuj contacted her and told her that he knew the present petitioner, who was running a hotel in Shimla. She contacted the petitioner, who called her to his hotel. She went to the petitioner’s hotel on 22.04.2023, where she was allotted Room No.102. The petitioner came to her room and offered food and soft drinks. The informant paid Rs.50,000/- on 22.04.2023 and Rs.1,50,000/- on 23.04.2023 to the petitioner towards the hotel lease deed. The petitioner raped the informant in her room. He apologized for his behaviour in the morning. He again sexually assaulted the informant on 30.04.2023 at 10:00 am. He threatened her and told her that he would not enter into any agreement with her in case of disclosure of the incident to any person. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statement of the informant was also recorded before the Court. As per the investigation, the location of the informant and the petitioner was found to be in Shimla on the dates of the incidents. The police also found that the informant had transferred Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner. The statement of the informant regarding the payment of the room rent and meal expenses was also corroborated. The petitioner produced the record regarding the license of the hotel but he could not produce any record of the lease. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses, in case, he is released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. Mohinder Pal, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay in reporting the matter to the police. The informant was in contact with the petitioner even after the incident, which falsifies her version regarding the rape. Petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner was involved in the commission of a heinous crime. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. Mr. Mohinder Pal, learned counsel for the informant/victim adopted the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General.

7. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions at the bar and have gone through