The court granted bail considering the possibility of consensual relations and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

Virender Singh, Judge.

Applicant-Ramesh Kumar has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for releasing him on bail, during the pendency of

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

trial, arising out of FIR No.50 of 2024, dated 26.10.2024, registered, under Sections 64(2), 351(2) and 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), with Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, H.P.

2. According to the applicant, he is innocent person and has falsely been impleaded by the Police, in this case.

3. As per the applicant, he is permanent resident of the address, as mentioned in the application, as such, he is having deep roots in the society.

4. It is the further case of the applicant that he is the only bread earner of his family and his detention would cause adverse impact upon his family.

5. As per the applicant, the investigation, in the present case, is complete and nothing is to be recovered from him nor at his instance.

6. The applicant has also tried his luck by moving the bail application, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, however, his application was dismissed, vide order, dated 05^th April, 2025.

7. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, has given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

8. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to release the applicant on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

9. When put to notice, the police has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 26^th October, 2024, the complainant/victim, aged about 34 years, appeared before the Police and moved a complaint, mentioning therein, that she is resident of the address, as mentioned in the complaint and is a home maker.

Her husband is a teacher.

9.1. According to the complainant, accused is her brother-in-law (Jeth) in relation and he is also a teacher. He is stated to be residing in a rented accommodation, at Julahkadi, along with his family. On 04.07.2024, , when the prosecutrix had gone to Hospital, then, at about 11.00 a.m., accused met her outside the Hospital and took her to his home on the pretext that she was being called by his wife.

9.2. According to the prosecutrix, since they are from the same family, as such, she had gone with the accused, without any hesitation, however, when she reached at the room of the accused, no one was there. Accused made her to sit on the pretext that his wife might have gone to some neighbour.

9.3. Thereafter, when the prosecutrix had gone to washroom, then, the accused bolted the room from inside and as soon as, she came out from the washroom, he had thrown her on the bed and gagged her mouth, so that the prosecutrix could not make a noise. Thereafter, accused had raped her.

9.4. Thereafter, the accused lifted the mobile phone, which was kept on the TV Trolley and said that he had recorded everything and pressured her to dance on his tune. Thereafter, on the pretext of making the video viral, accused used to call her and raped her on six occasions.

9.5. According to the prosecutrix, on 10.09.2024, when prosecutrix was all alone, then at about 11.00 p.m., accused came to her home and started making efforts for forcible physical relations, upon which, she has refused on the pretext that she was having menstrual circle, but the accused had not paid any heed to her request and on the pretext of making the video viral, he raped her, due to which, she got pregnant.

9.6. Thereafter, the family members of the prosecutrix came to know about all these facts. Lastly,