Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

h Bail petitioner namely Tara Chand, who is 44 years old and is gbehind bars since 21.5.2025, 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. 46 of 2025 dated 21.5.2025, registered at Police Station Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 64(1), 333 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023 (in short “BNS”).

2. Respondent-State has filed the status report under the signature of SHO, PS Nirmand, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, who has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 21.5.2025, complainant lodged a complaint at afore Police Station, alleging therein that on 5.5.2025, her mother, who is 65 years old i.e. victim- prosecutrix, was sexually assaulted against her wish by the petitioner. She alleged that her mother resrides in the village alone and on the date of alleged incident, bail petitioner forcibly entered the house and sexually assaulted her agaoinst her wishes. In the afore background, FIR detailed herein abovCe, came to be lodged against the petitioner on 21.5.2025 and since then, he is behind the bars. Since investigation in the case is comhplete and nothing remains to be recovered from him, bail petitioner hasapproached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 states that there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that accused taking advantage of old age of victim-prosecutrix., not only extended threats to her, but also sexually assaulted her against her wishes, as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. While admitting factum with regard to recording of statement of victim-prosecutrix, learned Additional Advocate General states that trial is at an advance stage and as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, becau se in that event, he may cause harm tothe victim-prosecutrix. r

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material availableo on record, this Court finds that allegedly incident took place on 5C.5.2025, but report qua the same came to be lodged on 21.5.2025, by daughter of the victim-prosecutrix, who alleged that on the dathe of the alleged incident, at about 10:00pm, bail petitioner forcibly entered the room of the victim-prosecutrix, who was living alone at her house, and thereafter, sexually assaulted her against her wishes. He also extended threats to victim-prosecutrix that if she discloses the afore fact to anybody, she will face the consequences. Since medical of the victim- prosecutrix was conducted after 15 days of the alleged incident, no cogent and convincing evidence came forth qua the alleged incident of rape. Statement of victim-prosecutrix has already been recorded in the trial court, perusal whereof reveals that she has not supported the. case of the prosecution, rather she has simply stated that bail petitioner may be pardoned. Having carefully perused statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded before the trial court, this court is persuaded to agree with learned Legal Aid Counsel that nothing specific has been stated by prosecutrix qua the alleged incident of sexual assault, if any, by the petitioner, ratherrepeatedly, it came to be stated by h er that accused may be pardoned.

6. In view of the above, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he h