IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION MAIN 1811 OF 2022 Between:-

MAHESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VPO DADAHU, TEHSIL DADAHU, DISTRICT SIRMOUR HP AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

….PETITIONER (SH. SERVEDAMAN RATHORE, ADVOCATE)

AND STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

....RESPONDENT (SH. DESH RAJ THAKUR ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on: 31.8.2022 Date of decision: 2.9.2022.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:

H O R D E R The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 57 of

2022 dated 6.8.2022 under Sections 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Renuka Ji, District Sirmour, H.P.

2. The petitioner has surrendered before this Court on 17.8.2022 and was released on interim bail on the same day. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the investigation.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he sexually exploited the prosecutrix under a false promise to marry. Petitioner suppressed the fact that he was already married and developed relation with the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that petitione r and his wife posted indecent photographs/pictures of the prosecutrix on her own facebook ID by hacking the same.

4. Poetitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the grounCds that a false case has been registered against him. As per petitioner, there is enmity between the families of hpetitioner and that of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the gpetitioner is respectable person and has no criminal background. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed against him.

5. Status report filed by the respondent reveals that the preliminary investigation is complete. It is stated that till date no evidence has been found against the petitioner or his wife regarding the allegation of hacking the facebook ID of prosecutrix and posting of indecent photographs on such ID. It is further submitted that the petitioner is avoiding to hand over his old Mobile Phone to the police, which can provide credible evidence in support of the prosecution case.

6. During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the phone as required by police has been handed over by the petitioner and this fact was not denied by the respondent.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the c ase file carefully.

8. It is revealed from the status report that as per her own version, the prosecutrix had resided with the petitioner foor about one year at Solan. Prosecutrix is about 22 yeCars of age. The allegations with respect to sexual exploitation of prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage hare yet to be proved. The case was registered on 6.8.2022.

gThe police has not been able to get any evidence regarding allegations of posting of indecent photographs of facebook ID of the prosecutrix.

9. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that the offence is serious in nature and in case the petitioner is released on bail, he can overawe the prosecutrix and other witnesses. Mere apprehension of possibility of influencing the prosecution witnesses cannot be the sole ground to deny liberty of bail to the petitioner. There has to be some tangible material in order to support such apprehension. Even otherwise such apprehension can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions against the bail petitioner.

10. No justification is shown by respondent for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. As noticed above, both the mobile phones of petitioner have already been taken in possession by the police. No incriminating evidence has been found from the mobile of the wife of the petitioner.

11. Pre-trial incarceratio