JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Bail petitioner namely Raj Kumar, who is behind bars since 21.09.2025, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.98 of 2025, dated 21.09.2025, under Sections 64, 126 (2), 127 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 21.09.2025, victim-prosecutrix (name held to protect her identity) lodged a compliant at Police Station Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that on 20.09.2025, while she had gone to Patwar Ghar for some work and thereafter, had to go to Bilaspur, one car bearing registration No.HP-89-2590 being driven by the bail-petitioner came from Jhandutta side. Victim-prosecutrix alleged that she boarded the afore car near Matla and when it reached near Village Kohina, the bail-petitioner started behaving indecently. She alleged that once vehicle reached four lane road, bail-petitioner kept on insisting to take his vehicle to nearby jungle, which proposal was seriously opposed by the victim-prosecutrix, but yet she was taken forcibly to nearby jungle and thereafter, bail-petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes. On the basis of aforesaid complaint of the victim-prosecutrix, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail-petitioner and bail-petitioner is behind bars since 21.09.2025. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 deserve any leniency and as such, his prayer for grant of regular bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Panwar states that bail-petitioner is accused of having committed heinous crime, as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in that event he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in such activities and cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix, as such, his prayer for grant of bail may be rejected. 4. To the contrary Mr. 4. To the contrary Mr. Suresh Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the bail-petitioner, states that bare perusal of contents of FIR as well as statement of the victim-prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS itself suggests that victim-prosecutrix, of her own volition, joined the company of the bail-petitioner and thereafter, falsely implicated him to extract money. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, above named counsel invited attention of this Court to Annexure P-5 (colly) to demonstrate that in past also, victim-prosecutrix had filed false cases, some of which were compromised by her after  receipt of certain amounts. While referring to MLC adduced on record by the prosecution, he states that otherwise also, there is no medical evidence to prove allegations of forcible sexual intercourse, if any, committed by the bail-petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix is 27 years old and she of her own volition boarded the car of the bail-petitioner on the date of alleged incident. Though victim-prosecutrix has claimed that while car had reached near Kohina, bail-petitioner started behaving indecently, but there is no explanation rendered on record that why she did not get out of the vehicle, when the car was stopped by the bail-petitioner near four lane road, as stated by victim herself. It clearly emerges from the statement of the victim-prosecutrix that at first instance, bail-petitioner stopped his car near four lane road and thereafter, insisted upon her to go to nearby jungle. It also emerges from the statement of bail-petitioner that at that juncture, victim-prosecutrix had actually come out of the car but after being pulled back by the bail-petitioner, she was allegedly taken to nearby jungle. This Court can take judicial note of the fact that the four-lane road referred to is the Chandigarh-Manali Highway, which carries heavy traffic. If the victim-prosecutrix had been forcibly dragged or pulled against her wishes, she would have inevitably raised an alarm. Though by now it is well-settled that statement of victim-prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside lightly unless same is not corroborated by the other material evidence, but in the instant case material adduced on record by the bail-petitioner, which has not been seriously disputed by the respondent-State, itself suggests that in past also, victim-prosecutrix had made similar complaints but subsequently same were compromised for some amount. 6. 6. Leaving everything aside, medical evidence adduced on record nowhere supports the case of the prosecution. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent/State and Mr. Arvind Negi, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant, repeatedly argued that bail-petitioner taking undue advantage of the situation, whereby victim-prosecutrix had taken lift in the car of the bail-petitioner sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but having noticed conduct of the victim-prosecutrix, which is apparent from the statements given to the police as well as Judicial Magistrate, this Court is not persuaded to accept the aforesaid submission, rather this Court is of the view that victim-prosecutrix, being major, was fully capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of bail-petitioner, with whom she otherwise appears to have had prior acquaintance. Police has collected evidence suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner and victim-prosecutrix had prior acquaintance through Facebook. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but having noticed aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, coupled with the fact that bail-petitioner is behind bars since 21.09.2025 and till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been examined, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the bail-petitioner for grant of regular bail. 7. Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of cases that one is deemed to be innocent till the time his/her guilt is not proved, in accordance with law. Since guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be established on record by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence, this court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the bail petitioner for an indefinite period during trial. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice can be best met by putting the  bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: 2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 9. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. 10. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 11. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down  various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: (a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (e) He shall surrender passport, if any, before the investigating agency. 13. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 14. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. 15. The bail petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the learned trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.