JUDGMAENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner Arjun Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) stands arrested, in connection with 126/14, dated 21.9.2014, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under the provisions of Sections 376 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this petition, filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused is seeking regular bail. 3. Notice in the petition was issued on 2.9.2015. Record, more particularly medical record (MLC) and the documents pertaining to the entrustment of money, perused. 4. Allegedly, under the pretext of solemnizing marriage, accused subjected the prosecutrix (complainant) to sexual intercourse and also dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 8,68,000/- belonging to the prosecutrix. 5. Record reveals that statements of the prosecutrix as also other relevant and important witnesses stand recorded. 6. Learned counsel for the accused contends that version of the prosecutrix of having met the accused, pursuant to an advertisement issued in the Punjab Kesri newspaper dated 27.4.2014, stands contradicted by her version so given to the doctor, with regard to the date on which she developed acquaintance with the accused and also when the money stood entrusted and misappropriated. Appreciation of such testimony and material on record is the subject matter before the trial Court. 7. However, in the given facts and circumstances, accused has made out a case for grant of bail. Parties are adults. Accused is permanent resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh and not likely to flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court. No recovery is to be effected from the accused nor is there any fear or apprehension to the prosecutrix or witnesses from the accused. Statements of the relevant and important witnesses stood recorded. 8. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that four other cases stand registered against the accused, but then it is not the case of the prosecution that he was not enlarged on bail with respect to the same. 9. According to the prosecution, prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault on two occasions at different places. Prosecutrix had met the accused in the company of her mother, when talks of solemnization of marriage had taken place. 9. According to the prosecution, prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault on two occasions at different places. Prosecutrix had met the accused in the company of her mother, when talks of solemnization of marriage had taken place. Whether sexual assault was under promise of marriage or in breach thereof is a subject matter which the trial Court shall consider, but however, insofar as the present petition is concerned, interest of justice would be met if accused’s request is allowed, as no useful purpose would be served in continuing with his detention. 10. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the 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, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 11. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , laid down the parameters for grant of bail. 12. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 13. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner-accused, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail. It does not fall within the exceptional clause as laid down by the apex Court. 14. 13. Having holistically considered the nature of offence and the relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner-accused, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail. It does not fall within the exceptional clause as laid down by the apex Court. 14. As such, petitioner-accused Arjun Singh is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, flee away from the jurisdiction of this Court, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner act and conduct himself so as to disentitle himself from the discretionary power. Also, he shall always make himself available during trial. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No.HHCVIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 15. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.