The court emphasized that bail should be granted based on the credibility of allegations and the necessity to prevent witness tampering, establishing stringent conditions for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No.255 of 2024, dated 29.08.2024, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNS'). The police have completed the investigation, and the petitioner’s custody is not required. The petitioner had also lodged F.I.R. No. 94 of 2024, dated 18.03.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B and 420 of IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, against the victim and her friends for embezzlement of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores). The victim and her friends were arrested in the said F.I.R. The victim had lodged the present F.I.R. after getting bail in the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The call detail records do not show that the petitioner had visited Una in November 2023, when the incident is stated to have taken place. The victim wants to get more money from the petitioner by filing a false complaint against her. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police that she was employed in the petitioner’s company. The petitioner hired a flat in Gurugram and asked the victim to shift to the flat. He also increased her salary. He visited the victim’s flat in March 2021 and raped her. He also threatened the victim. The victim could not report the matter to anyone as she was alone at Gurugram and apprehensive about her safety. The petitioner took her to various hotels where he raped her. He threatened the victim to upload her pictures on social media. The victim shifted to Canada with her husband, but the petitioner continued to threaten her. He asked the victim to return to India, or he would send her indecent pictures to her husband. The victim returned to India in August 2023, and the petitioner took her to a flat in Gurugram, where he raped her. The victim visited Una in November 2023. The petitioner took her to Peer Nigah Road and raped her in a car. The petitioner purchased some stamp papers at Una, and he put the victim’s forged signatures on them.

3. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victim refused to undergo a medical examination. The police collected call details and location records of the mobile phones of the petitioner and victim. The police found that the petitioner’s phone location was not at Una in November 2023. The police collected the hotel records and found that the victim and petitioner had booked rooms in the hotels. The Stamp Vendor stated that he had supplied the stamp papers to the victim after entering her Aadhar Card and PAN number in his register. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. The challan was filed before the Court and is now listed for consideration of charge on 22.03.2025.

4. I have heard Mr Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Gautam Sood, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the victim.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the Charge sheet in F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the petitioner to submit that the relationship between the petitioner and victim is strained. The victim and her friends were arrested for committing fraud and forging the documents. T