The presumption of innocence prevails until proven guilty, and bail should not be punitive but ensure trial attendance.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Sharma, J.)

Bail petitioner namely Ram Kumar Thakur, who is behind the bars since 2.9.2024, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 71/24 dated 20.9.2024, registered at Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 376, 354A, 506 of IPC and Section 5 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.

2. Respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Pardeep Singh, PS. Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, has come present with records. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of status report as well as other material made available to this Court reveals that on 2.9.2024, victim-prosecutrix ( name withheld ) got her statement recorded under Section 173 of the BNSS, alleging therein that she is a domestic working woman and after passing 12th in the year 2019, she went to Smt. Amar Dei, wife of Sh. Ashok, to learn sewing. Allegedly, afore Amar Dei while teaching her as well as other students, used to teach them not to get married, roam around, drink and talk to boys. Allegedly, in the year 2020, Amar Dei took her to PGI, where her husband was admitted. She alleged that she stayed for a month at Chandigarh and thereafter, came back to Tissa with Amar Dei. She further alleged that in March 2021, Amar Dei took her to Chamba on the pretext that she will get her married to one Ram Thakur i.e. present bail petitioner, but when she reached Chamba, Amar Dei took her to hotel where she allegedly booked two rooms. In one room, present bail petitioner, who was already present there, made the victim-prosecutrix consume Pepsi mixed with some toxic substance. Allegedly, bail petitioner taking advantage of the situation sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix against her wishes. She alleged that when she confronted Amar Dei and present bail petitioner for their indecent behaviour, they not only extended threats, but also threatened to upload her obscene video and photos taken by the bail petitioner on the internet. Present bail petitioner kept on sexually assaulting the victim-prosecutrix till the end of the year 2023 and when victim-prosecutrix stopped talking to the present bail petitioner, he allegedly sent her video on mobile phone of Amar Dei, who further sent it on the Whastapp of her husband (Ashok), who also started blackmailing the victim-prosecutrix. In the afore background, victim-prosecutrix lodged complaint against Amar Dei, Ashok and the present bail petitioner. Above named co-accused already stand enlarged on bail, whereas present bail petitioner is behind the bars for more than six months. 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, praying therein for grant of regular bail.

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while acknowledging factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserves any leniency. He further states that report of RFSL is still awaited. While making this Court peruse record, especially statement made by victim-prosecutrix, Mr. Kahol states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner not only sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix against her wishes, but also blackmailed her by making her video viral. Mr. Kahol states that since statement of victim-prosecutrix is yet to be recorded, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, who in that event may not only flee from justice, but may cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that