IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial must be balanced against the seriousness of the charges, allowing for bail in cases where the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence to support the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in charge sheet, titled, 'State vs. Mukesh Gupta' pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Reasi (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) for commission of offences under Sections 376 and 506 RPC, arising out of FIR bearing No. 13/2019registered with the Police Station, Katra.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Government employee serving as a Senior Accountant with the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization, Ministry of Urban Affairs at New Delhi and is seeking bail on the ground that he met the prosecutrix for the first time on 29.11.2011 at his office where she was introduced through a common friend. Thereafter, they continued to meet each other. Subsequently, the prosecutrix offered to involve the petitioner in her business activities and as such, the petitioner and the prosecutrix were doing business together wherein the petitioner made huge investment after withdrawing it from the provident fund, bank account and availing few bank loans. The petitioner along with the prosecutrix and her mother had also gone for several outstation vacations and religious trips. The petitioner and the prosecutrix had suffered huge business losses in their business venture. The petitioner and prosecutrix had also instituted several suits together and complaints under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act either in the name of the petitioner or with the prosecutrix collectively, those were being handled by the prosecutrix on behalf of the petitioner being his attorney holder. As huge amount was stuck in the litigation, so, the prosecutrix became impatient and blamed the petitioner for all such losses. The prosecutrix also refused to return the money invested by the petitioner. The prosecutrix also started exerting pressure as well as threats upon the petitioner through her brother in law and other sources. The prosecutrix along with one Karan Jain relative of the prosecutrix also attacked the petitioner, resulting into the lodging of FIR and various litigations are pending against the prosecutrix. The petitioner has given details of the legal actions in Para 4 of the application, the details of which are not required to be mentioned. It is further submitted that FIR No. 13/2019 (supra) was registered on 20.01.2019 for commission of offences under sections 376 and 506 RPC after the zero FIR was received by the Police Station, Katra.

3. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2019 and after the conclusion of the investigation, the charge sheet for commission of offences under Sections 376 and 506 RPC was filed against the petitioner before the committal court on 25.02.2019 and the same was committed to the learned trial court on the same date. Learned trial court vide order dated 06.07.2019 framed the charges for commission of offences under sections 376 and 506 RPC against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been roped in the false FIR because of the business dispute with the prosecutrix and further, Police has cited fifteen witnesses and out of which, only statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded during this period of more than two years. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier laid a motion before the trial court for grant of bail and the learned trial court vide order dated 31.08.2020 dismissed the said application.

4. Response stands filed by the official respondent in which factual aspects of the case have been narrated. The same response has been adopted by the respondent No. 2 also.

5. Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the false FIR has been lodged just because of the business dispute and further, the petitioner has been in custody for the last nearly three years and out of fifteen witnesses, only one witness has been examined.

6. Per contra, Mr. Jamrodh Singh, GA submitted th