JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - By way of this application, filed under section 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 156 of 2018 dated 26.05.2018, registered under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. 2. It is not in dispute that the age of the prosecutrix is 26 years and the FIR has been lodged alleging therein that the accused had established physical relations with her since September, 2017 on the pretext that he was unmarried and that later on he was holding out threats to the prosecutrix as also to her family. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the most it may be a case of consensual physical relations and inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR itself shrouds the complaint of the prosecutrix with suspicion. He has submitted and this fact has not been rebutted by the prosecution that the prosecutrix and the accused are residing in the same area and are acquainted with each other. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General has filed the status report and he has further apprised the Court that the investigation in the case is almost complete and presently FSL report is awaited. He has further contended that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may hamper the investigation and may also try to win over the witnesses. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General. 6. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offence(s) alleged against him, is a matter of trial. However, the facts of the case taken on the face of it do demonstrate that whereas the alleged occurrence is of October 2017 and onwards, the FIR has been lodged only in the month of May, 2018. Therefore, undoubtedly, there is delay in lodging of FIR, which delay, in my considered view, has prima facie not been satisfactorily explained. Further, it is highly unbelievable that prosecutrix, who was residing in the same area as the accused was, did not knew that the accused was married or as to what was the actual name of the accused. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Further, it is highly unbelievable that prosecutrix, who was residing in the same area as the accused was, did not knew that the accused was married or as to what was the actual name of the accused. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. The apprehension of the learned Additional Advocate General that in case the petitioner is granted bail, he may hamper the investigation and may try to win over the witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions upon the petitioner. Further, as has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a local resident of Village and Post Office Bathu, Police Station and Tehsil Haroli, District Una and his entire family is settled there, therefore, in case he is permitted to be released on bail, there is no chance of his fleeing away in order to evade the trial. Accordingly, this application is allowed, subject to the petitioner''s furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una/any other Judicial Magistrate available in District Una, on the following conditions: "i) Petitioner 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; ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever. iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise 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 iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court." 7. It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is clarified that findings which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application and learned trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the trial of the case. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner does not comply with the conditions which have been imposed upon him while granting the present bail, the State shall be at liberty to approach this Court for the cancellation of the bail. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.