JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—This is an application under section 439 of the Cod§ of Criminal Procedure for releasing the petitioner-applicant on bail. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Police record have been produced aid perused by me minutely. 3. Smt Sheela Devi w/o Sh. Mohan Singh, resident of village Karhiun, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, is alleged to have been raped by the applicant—a Naib Tehsildar at Tikkar and his companions, namely, S/Shri Shiv Dayal, Halqua Patwari and Kalag Ram, Vice-President, Gram Panchayat, Karhiun, on 29th May, 1993. in between 7 p. m. to 9 p. m. The prosecution case further is that two major brother-in-laws of the prose-cutrix were also present at the house but their services were taken for bringing liquor and eatable only by the accused party and during the time of occurrence they were sent out of the house for the above said purpose by the concerned party. The three brothers, i. e. husband of the prose-cutrix and his other two brothers, are stated to be residing separately. 4. Shari Mohan Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix was not present at the house on the material date. He returned on 31st May, 1993. He is an agriculturist, The accused persons have got no relation with the pro-secutrix or her husband. F.I. R has been lodged by the prosecutrix herself on 1-6-1993 vide D. D report No. 154 at 11.15 a.m. The police investigated the matter, collected material against the accused. So far as the applicant is concerned, the prosecutrix as also her brother-in-laws have stated that he is a stranger to that family ; that he had pretended to be overdrunk and stayed for the night at her place, besides the allegations having been made by her that she was raped by all but by this man twice. Other material has also been collected against the applicant. 5. It is contended that Court should be liberal in granting bail and the accused has a right to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Other material has also been collected against the applicant. 5. It is contended that Court should be liberal in granting bail and the accused has a right to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The question of grant of bail to the accused depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the factors which the Court would take into consideration in a given case cannot be put into straight jacket, but some of these have been spelled out by the apex Court which 1 will personally refer to. If Article 21 gives right of liberty to the accused, it at the same time protects a woman so that she can live with dignity and honour. 6. Let me now refer to some judgments cited at the bar as to the nature of offence of rape etc., the corroboration required and the principles to be kept in view while granting bail. 7. In Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another\ AIR 1987 SC 1613, the accused was involved in a case of murder which took place in broad day light and to which there were eye-witnesses. He was granted bail on the ground that there was delay in trial and a citizens liberty was involved The Court found that the accused persons had obtained adjournment after adjournment on one pretext or the other and they did not allow the Court to proceed with the trial and there were also serious allegations of tampering of evidence on behalf of the accused persons. The Supreme Court set aside the order granting bail. The Court observed that the High Court proceeded to grant bail simply on the ground that the liberty of a citizen was involved which was trie case in every criminal case more particularly id a murder case where citizen who let alone losing liberty had lost his very life. The Supreme Court set aside the order granting bail. The Court observed that the High Court proceeded to grant bail simply on the ground that the liberty of a citizen was involved which was trie case in every criminal case more particularly id a murder case where citizen who let alone losing liberty had lost his very life. The Court observed as under i— "No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by Court.........Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by the concept of liberty, disregarding the facts of the case. The Court also observed :— "One of the salutary principle in granting bail is that the Court should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence. When allegations of tampering of evidence are made, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself whether those allegations have basis (they can seldom be proved by concrete evidence) and if the allegations are not found to be concocted it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in enlarging the accused on bail. In the instant case there were serious allegations but the learned Judge did not either consider or test the same." 8. The Court said that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent was not entitled to bail if the seriousness of the matter was realised and a judicious approach was made. 9. In the instant case there were serious allegations but the learned Judge did not either consider or test the same." 8. The Court said that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent was not entitled to bail if the seriousness of the matter was realised and a judicious approach was made. 9. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1978 SC 179, the apex Court laid down the overriding considerations in granting bail and these are ; "the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed ; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses ; likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice ; of repeating the offences ; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case ; of tampering with witnesses ; the history of the case as well as of its investigation. But the Court stressed that there were two paramount considerations, viz,, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence which related to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of justice and that it was essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others and that there could not be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail." 10. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, which was also a case under section 376, I. P. C. the Supreme Court said *in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroooration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society". The Court also said that it was conceivable in the western society that female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons, and after setting out these reasons the Court observed as under : "By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. The Court also said that it was conceivable in the western society that female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons, and after setting out these reasons the Court observed as under : "By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because i (O A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the Society or being looked down by the Society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours, (3) She would have to brave the whole world1.(4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered, (5) If she is unmarried she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself, (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her, (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husbands family of a married woman, would also more often than not want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence (12) the reluctance to face interrogation by the instigating agency, to face the Court, to face the cross-examination by counsel of the culprit, aid the risk of b3mg disbelieved, act as a deterrent." 11. This judgment was followed in another decision of the Supreme Court in Gagan Bihari and another v. State Orissa, JT 1991 (3) SC 63 a case asunder sections 366/376/34,1. P C. and again observed that corroboration was not sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The court also applied the provisions of section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act. This section raises certain presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. I will however, not go into this question and in my opinion it will be for the trial Court to examine applicability of section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act in a particular case. 12. la this case the prosecutrix is a married woman. There is no gainsaying the fact that there are many constraints to a married woman before lodging the F. I R. Hence mere delay of about 2 or 3 days, to my mind, is no ground for granting the bail. Her faculty was crowded because of the burden of the horrible act and it must have taken some time to come out of that trauma and then to inform her husband about what happened with her The Supreme Court in the case of Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachai Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361, held that delay of about 10 days with respect to the filing of the F. I. R. in cases of alleged rape was explained as a result of deliberation in the family whether to take the matter which involved the honour of the family to get words was held to be reasonable and could be expected as it was not uncommon that such considerations delay actioo on the part of the near relations of girl who had been raped. Let us not forget that every woman in this Republic is under the protection of law and an offence committed on her cannot be treated with indifference notwithstanding any insinuation or suggestions against her character. The delay by itself is no ground to grant the bail particularly her statement where she stated that she became so afraid that immediately she left the place of the petitioner for home and there she had to muster enough courage to tell this incident to her husband. I must say that for a married woman to tell her husband that rape had been committed on her must have required enough courage to do so. Moreover, the question of delay will be looked into on merits. 13. It was also submitted before me that the two other co-accused have been released on bail in anticipation of their arrest by the learned Sessions Judge and the allegations in respect of the applicant are also the same as disclosed by the prosecution version On the contrary, Shri C. L. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently asserted that the applicant is an influential person and there is every likelihood of the witnesses being tampered with or influenced by him ; that the accused is a stranger to the prosecutrix and she had no enmity to falsely implicate the accused. Further it is pointed out that considering the gravity of the offence, the application is liable to be dismissed, 14. Crime against woman is on increase and courts have to be circumspect in granting bail to the accused persons accused of having committed heinous offences against the woman. I have set out the above principals relating to an offence under section 376,1. P. C, and also matters which the Court has to take into consideration while granting bail to the accused, accused of heinous offence. Considering all the aspects of the matter of the case, status, relationship, circumstances under which the offence was committed and also the persons aggrieved etc., in my opinion, the application deserves to be rejected. I ordered accordingly. 15. The applicant is already in custody. He shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application seeking his release on bail if the putting of the challan is delayed or on other ground(s) if they emerge from the entire material collected by the prosecution agency. I ordered accordingly. 15. The applicant is already in custody. He shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application seeking his release on bail if the putting of the challan is delayed or on other ground(s) if they emerge from the entire material collected by the prosecution agency. Opinion expressed, if any, shall not affect the case on merit. Dasti Copy on usual terms. Ordered accordingly.