This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for grant of bail in Crime

No.92/2022 registered by Raibag Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(n)(f), 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short 8IPC9) and Section 66(E) of the Information

Technology Act, 2008.

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of

victim, aged about 23 years filed before the Police on 13.04.2022

alleging that previously she was given in marriage with some other

person and thereafter due to some quarrel she was staying away

3

from her husband. Thereafter, the accused came in contact with her

wherever she go for washing clothes and fetching the water.

Subsequently, once she was waiting for bus, at that time the

accused brought the vehicle and giving lift to her in silver color Ford

Car. When she went along with him, he took her in a lonely house

at Nipnal village in a Farm house, where he said to be committed

forcible sexual assault on her. Subsequently, he threatened her not

to disclosed anybody. Subsequently, after the said incident he was

continuously committing sexual assault on her and thereafter he

stopped contacting her. On 12.04.2022 at about 8.00 p.m., she

came to know through her cousin brother that the accused said to

be sent porn videography showing the complainant and the

petitioner together in private romance done by them. Thereafter a

complaint came to be filed. The petitioner arrested by the Police on

17.05.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. The bail petition

filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and hence the petitioner

is before this Court.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the petitioner is innocent of alleged offences. There is a delay

4

in filing the complaint. The complainant is aged about 23 years and

a married women. She was given consent to the sexual intercourse

therefore it cannot be said that it is a sexual offence. The petitioner

is ready to abide by any conditions and hence he prayed for grant

bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader

has seriously objected the bail petition on the ground that the

investigation is still pending and hence she prayed for rejection of

bail petition.

6.

Having heard the arguments of both counsel and

perused the records.

7.

On perusal of the same, considering the facts and

circumstance of the case, the victim girl is aged 23 years and a

married woman and she was away from her husband and when she

going to work the accused came in contact. However, when she

was waiting for vehicle to go to her native place, at that time the

accused came and took the complainant to some other place and

committed sexual assault on her. Subsequently, continuously he

has committed sexual assault on her and he said to be taken porn

5

videography and sent it to some other persons which was viewed

by the wife of the accused and also the wife of her cousin brother.

Therefore a complaint came to be filed.

8.

Of course, the victim is aged 23 years and it cannot be

said she has not given consent to sexual intercourse. However, the

investigation is still pending and the prosecution is yet to record the

statement of the victim lady under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is

every possibility of threatening the prosecution witnesses which

cannot be ruled out. The petitioner is required for investigation and

hence he is not entitled for grant of bail until completion of the

investigation.

9.

Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner-accused is

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM