IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail is an exceptional relief to be granted sparingly, considering the nature of the accusations and the balance between individual liberty and societal interests.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Petitioner–Ashok Kumar has come up before this Court, seeking pre-arrest bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), originating from FIR No.27 of 2024, dated 26.01.2024, under Sections 376, 451, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered with Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, [H.P.].

2. The background facts of the case are that the bail petitioner, Ashok Kumar, is serving in the Armed Forces in Dogra Regiment since 2005.

2(i). The case set up by the bail petitioner is that the complainant-prosecutrix [X], [name withheld], had sent an e-mail on 26.01.2024 to Police Post, Yol Cantt., Dharamshala. In the complaint, the prosecutrix alleged that the father of the prosecutrix and the present bail petitioner were serving in the same Unit and the bail petitioner and prosecutrix known each other for the last sixteen years. It is the case of the complainant that they married each other in Raghu Nath Temple in the year 2022. However, the factum of marriage has been denied by the bail petitioner in totality.

2(ii). It is the further case, of the bail petitioner, that he has been falsely implicated in the matter, which stood compromised with the intervention of Gram Panchayat, Tikka Bani [Yol], on 25.12.2023 [Annexure P-1]. The bail petitioner further submits that he is married and is having a son, whereas, the complainant-prosecutrix is also married having three minor children. It is averred in the bail petition that the bail petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the accusation under Sections 376, 451, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which are not made out on facts as well as law.

2(iii). Notably, the bail petitioner had filed an application for bail before the Learned Special Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, but the same was withdrawn on 02.02.2024 [Annexure P-3]. It is in this background that the bail petitioner has prayed for, grant of pre-arrest-anticipatory bail, so as to save him from unwarranted allegations being levelled against him.

3. Upon listing of this petition [Cr.MP (M) No.190 of 2024], this Court notice to the respondent, on 12.02.2024 and directed the State Authorities to file reply/ status report. However, the interim protection, by way of pre-arrest bail, was accorded to the bail petitioner. The matter was then listed on 28.02.2024, when the status report was filed by the State Authorities. The matter was then listed on 11.03.2024 when, the fresh status report was filed by the State Authorities/Investigating Agencies.

3(i). As a sequel to the issuance of notice, as perusal of the Status Report reveals that the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner knew each other for the last sixteen years. Both the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner had talking terms since 2019. It is also clear from the status report that the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner had treated each other as husband and wife. In this background, it is borne out from the status report that both the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner had remained together at various places and on various occasions at Udhampur, Jammu, Pathankot, Chamunda and Nagrota Bagwan since 2019 till the year 2022, on various occasions.

3(ii). It is further stated in the status report that relations between the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner became sour about 3-4 months ago; a friend of the bail petitioner’s called up the prosecutrix and narrated different story that the bail petitioner had other girlfriends also. The status report reveals that on 27.01.2024, the prosecutrix was taken for medical examination in Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, but after disclosing the entire incident, she failed to undergo the medical before the Medical Officer concerned. The status report further reveals that on 27.01.2024, the prosecutrix was taken for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Chief J