JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner namely Chet Ram alias Deepak, who is behind the bars since 17.3.2018, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in FIR No.61 of 2018, dated 16.3.2018, under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC, registered at police Station, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 7.8.2018, ASI Prem Singh, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report suggests that the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ''prosecutrix''), who is 32 years old lady, lodged a complaint with the police at Manali on 16.3.2018, alleging therein that the bail petitioner,who knows her for the last 10 years, gave her a call at 7:30 PM in the evening and pressurized her to solemnize marriage with him. She further alleged that bail petitioner started weeping/crying and at 12:30 AM arrived at her house in a vehicle, whereafter she alongwith petitioner went to Manali and stayed at Hotel Kilimangaro ( Room No.103). As per the prosecutrix, she alongwith bail petitioner arrived at aforesaid Hotel at 1:45 AM, whereafter they stayed in room No.103 and also developed physical relations. Allegedly, at 6:30 AM in the morning bail petitioner while leaving the prosecutrix in the Hotel went out on the pretext that he has to call person namely, Sunny, but fact remains that he never came back, as a consequences of which, FIR detailed hereinabove, lodged against the bail petitioner at the behest of the prosecutrix. Police arrested the bail petitioner on 17.3.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of Law. 4. Mr. Police arrested the bail petitioner on 17.3.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of Law. 4. Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, vehemently argued that no case, if any, under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC is made against the bail petitioner, because it is quite apparent that prosecutrix, who was known to the bail petitioner for the last 10 years, joined the company of bail petitioner of her own volition and without there being any pressure from the bail petitioner and as such, bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Palsra, further contended that apart from above, medical evidence led on record, nowhere suggests that bail petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix against her wishes because there is no mention, if any, of marks and resistance on the body of the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra, further contended that bare perusal of the MLC adduced on record, nowhere reveals that human blood and semen, if any, was found on the person of the prosecutrix. Lastly, Mr. Palsra contended that both prosecutrix and bail petitioner had prior acquaintance and they actually wanted to solemnize marriage, but same could not be materialized on account of opposition of parents of the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra, further stated that as per instructions imparted to him, bail petitioner is still ready to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix. Mr. Palsra argued that since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. He further stated that bail petitioner is local resident of the area and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice, rather he shall make himself available for investigation and trial as and when called by the investigating agency. 5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, opposed the prayer having been made on behalf of the bail petitioner and contended that keeping in view the nature of offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency, rather needs to be dealt with severely. Mr. Mr. Thakur further contended that true, it is that it has come in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C that she knew the bail petitioner for the last 10 years but that did not mean that bail petitioner had a licence to sexually assault the prosecutrix that too against her wishes. While refuting the contention of Mr. Palsra, that nothing has emerged in the medical evidence, Mr. Thakur, contended that Doctor in his report has categorically opined that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Having carefully examined the record/status report made available to this Court, especially statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this Court finds that prosecutrix, who is 32 years old lady had prior acquittance with the petitioner and they knew each other for the last 10 years.Otherwise also, if the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is read in its entirety, nowhere reveals that she was kidnapped or forcibly taken out of her house by the bail petitioner, rather she of her own volition on the askance of bail petitioner joined the company of bail petitioner and as such, there is considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that no case, if any, is made out against the bail petitioner under Section 366 and 376 of IPC. It further emerge from the record that prosecutrix of her own volition remained with the bail petitioner at Hotel Kilimangaro where she was allegedly sexually assaulted against her wishes. This Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that prosecutrix is major and by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that she was not aware of the consequences of her having joined the company of the bail petitioner, who was interested in marrying her, as has been fairly admitted by the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 8. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the learned trial Court below on the basis of the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution but having noticed the conduct of the prosecutrix and the material available on record, this Court is persuaded to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail at this Stage. 9. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the learned trial Court below on the basis of the entire evidence adduced on record by the prosecution but having noticed the conduct of the prosecutrix and the material available on record, this Court is persuaded to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail at this Stage. 9. Otherwise also, it is well settled that till the time guilty of a person is not proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent. Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as has been fairly stated by the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court. No material has been adduced on record, from where it can be inferred that in the event of petitioner''s being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and as such, this Court sees no reason to curtail the freedom of the petitioner for indefinite period, especially when the investigation in the case is almost complete. 10. 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 held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt has not been proved. It has further held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon''ble Apex Court has held 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. 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. 11. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be 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. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation , (2012) 1 SCC 40 ; wherein it has been held as under: "The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 12. Needless to say 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. 13. The Hon''ble 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. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, present bail petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ (Rs. One lakh) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned 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 them 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. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of his bail. 16. 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 bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti.