1 Whether approved for reporting?

_____________________________________________________

Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge

The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking anticipatory bail for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 115(2) & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’) registered vide FIR No.130 of 2026, dated 25.08.2026, at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P.

2. The facts which emerge from the status report so filed by the State are that on 25.08.2026, the prosecutrix had reported to the Police Station SHO Manali and filed a written complaint alleging that she had been living with her fiancee, the petitioner/accused in Manali since 12.05.2026. They had left Manali on 06.06.2026. They again returned to Manali on 12.08.2026. Prior to 12.08.2026, she had remained admitted in PGI for 15 days because of an injury in the neck, which had been caused by the petitioner/accused. The petitioner used to use intoxicants, which was objected to by the prosecutrix.

3. On 23.08.2026, the petitioner had started abusing and had fought with her. The petitioner/accused later came back, igrabbed and pulled her to the room. She tried to run. The petitioner/accused had broken into the other room, pushed and slapped her 8 to 9 times.

4. It was further alleged by the prosecutrix that the petitioner/accused had later pulled and pushed her towards the bed and sexually ravished her. He deliberately burned her private parts with the flame of lighter, choked her neck and also closed her mouth several times. She tried to escape and begged him to stop, but to no avail.

5. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be registered against the petitioner/accused.

6. The petitioner has preferred the present petition, alleging, inter alia, that he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. There is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. He ius the sole bread earner of the family, and the detention of tohe petitioner would not advance the cause of justice in any manner. The investigations are also stated to be complete.

7. Mr. N. S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Swetima Dogra, learned counsel, has strenuously urged that the accused and the prosecutrix were in a long-time relationship for the last about 10 years. They had also got engaged. He had left the prosecutrix on 23.08.2026 and the complaint had been lodged after two days on 25.08.2026. The version of the landlord would further show that the story is concocted. The injuries on the person of the prosecutrix are coloured and old. The MLC also does not remotely show that there were any burn injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. The petitioner thus was entitled to the discretion of bail.

8. The prosecutrix, who has also put in appe.arance through her counsel, Ms. Sheetal Vyas, while filing reply, has contested the averments made by the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the prosecutrix would thus urge that not only did the petitioner/accused sexually ravish her against her will, but had also inflicted burn injuries on her private parts with a lighter, which fact has been corroborated by the MLC. The factum of the parties being in a live-in relationship did not automatically establish consent for those particular acts. She further urged that the petitioner/accused has been contacting, influencing, pressurizing, and intimidating the prosecutrix and the other hwitnesses even after the filing of the bail petition. The prosecutrix ghad E-mailed a letter in this behalf to the Investigating Officer on i29.09.2026, after the grant of the interim protection, a prima facie case is made out at this stage, and the same is amply corroborated by th