JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Both the bail petitioners have approached this Court, by way of instant bail petitions filed under Section 438 Cr. PC, praying therein for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 3/2018 dated 03. 01. 2018 registered at Police Station Amb, Distt. Una (H. P. ), under Sections 376, 498A, 506 IPC. 2. Sequel to order dated 15. 01. 2018, whereby the bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on interim bail, HC Sunil Kumar, Women Police Station, Una, has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer has also filed status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Records perused and returned. 3. Records/Status report reveals that the FIR mentioned hereinabove came to be registered against the bail petitioners at the behest of complainant/prosecutrix, namely, Renu Bala, who on 02. 01. 2018 in a letter addressed to Dy. SP, Amb, alleged that the bail petitioners threatened her to kill and forcibly developed physical relations with her. Records/status report further reveals that the marriage of complainant/ prosecutrix was solemnized in the year 2003 as per Hindu customs and she has one son who was born in the year 2004. Since relations of complainant/prosecutrix were not cordial with her husband, namely, Ajay Kumar, she after five years of her marriage left her matrimonial house and started living at her paternal house. As per the compliant submitted by the complainant/prosecutrix, ten years back the bail petitioner, namely, Vijay Kumar came to her in her paternal house and extended threats. The bail petitioner asked the complainant/prosecutrix to return Rs. 4. 00 lacs spent by him in her marriage. Allegedly the above named bail petitioner brought the complainant/prosecutrix back to her matrimonial house but after some time, both the bail petitioners compelled her to solemnize marriage with bail petitioner Ram Pal. Allegedly on the pretext of marriage, bail petitioner Ram Pal repeatedly sexually assaulted the complainant/ prosecutrix. The complainant/prosecutrix lodged complaint at Police Station, Amb, but the same came to be compromised on 26. 12. 2017, wherein allegedly the bail petitioner Ram Pal agreed to marry with the sister of complainant/prosecutrix. The complainant/ prosecutrix alleged that since she is an illiterate lady, she did not know that what has been written in compromise. The complainant/prosecutrix lodged complaint at Police Station, Amb, but the same came to be compromised on 26. 12. 2017, wherein allegedly the bail petitioner Ram Pal agreed to marry with the sister of complainant/prosecutrix. The complainant/ prosecutrix alleged that since she is an illiterate lady, she did not know that what has been written in compromise. Now, since the bail petitioner Ram Pal has refused to marry with the sister of complainant/prosecutrix, she has lodged present complaint seeking therein action against the bail petitioners in accordance with law. In the aforesaid background, case under Sections 376, 498-A & 506 IPC has been registered against the bail petitioners. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners, while referring to the record/status report vehemently argued that no case, if any, is made out against the bail petitioners under Sections 376, 498-A & 506 IPC, because nothing has come in investigation against the bail petitioners suggestive of the fact that they forcibly and against the wishes of complainant/prosecutrix sexually assaulted her repeatedly as alleged by her. Mr. Suri further contended that if the report submitted by the complainant/prosecutrix is read carefully, it clearly suggests that the incident, if any, pertains to ten years back and there is nothing on record that during this period of ten years, the complaint was ever lodged by the complainant/prosecutrix either before the Gram Panchayat, or before the police and, as such, the bail petitioners are deserved to be enlarged on bail. Mr. Suri further contended that it clearly emerges from the status report that the complainant/prosecutrix has refused to undergo medical examination and, as such, there is no force in the allegations levelled by the complainant/prosecutrix. Mr. Suri further contended that in terms of order dated 15. 01. 2018, the bail petitioners have already joined the investigation and nothing is required to be recovered from them and, as such, they being local residents of the area deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer while opposing the prayer of bail having been made on behalf of bail petitioners contended that there is ample evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioners taking undue advantage of a poor plight of complainant/prosecutrix not only threatened her but repeatedly sexually assaulted her. Mr. 5. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer while opposing the prayer of bail having been made on behalf of bail petitioners contended that there is ample evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioners taking undue advantage of a poor plight of complainant/prosecutrix not only threatened her but repeatedly sexually assaulted her. Mr. Chauhan further contended that true it is that the complainant has refused to undergo medical examination but that cannot be a ground to enlarge the bail petitioners on bail especially when there is overwhelming evidence available on record that for a considerable time both the bail petitioners, who happened to be son and father, tortured, harassed and sexually assaulted the complainant/prosecutrix. Mr. Chauhan fairly acknowledged that the bail petitioners have joined the investigation and at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from them and investigation is almost complete save and except certain statements of neighbourers are yet to be recorded. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Perusal of the record/status report clearly suggests that the incident as reported by the complainant/prosecutrix pertains to the year 2007. As per the complainant, ten years back, bail petitioner, namely, Vijay Kumar approached her at her matrimonial house and asked her to return Rs. 4. 00 lacs spent by him on her marriage. She also stated that subsequently she again returned to her matrimonial house at Nehri Nauranga on the asking of bail petitioner Ram Pal, who on the pretext of marriage repeatedly sexually assaulted her. 8. After having perused the material available on record, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri that there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that during above said period, the complaint, if any, was ever lodged by the complainant/ proseucutrix against the bail petitioners, rather the conduct of the complainant suggests that she had prior acquaintance with the bail petitioners and she had been meeting them frequently. Otherwise also latest report submitted by the complainant to the police suggests that since the bail petitioner Ram Pal refused to marry with her younger sister, she sought action against them allegedly for committing offences under Sections 376, 498A & 506 IPC. Otherwise also latest report submitted by the complainant to the police suggests that since the bail petitioner Ram Pal refused to marry with her younger sister, she sought action against them allegedly for committing offences under Sections 376, 498A & 506 IPC. Though aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the Court below but careful perusal of the material adduced on record, nowhere suggests that the bail petitioners are involved in the crime alleged to have been committed by them under Sections 376, 498A & 506 IPC, as such, they cannot be allowed to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during the trial. Also, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the prosecutrix has refused to undergo the medical treatment. Otherwise also, the bail petitioners have joined the investigation, and nothing is required to be recovered from them. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel representing the bail petitioners undertakes that the bail petitioners shall make them available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Agency. 9. 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. Petitioners are local residents of the place mentioned in the application and they shall remain available to face the trial and to undergo imprisonment, if any, imposed upon them. 10. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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. 11. In view of above, order dated 15. 01. 11. In view of above, order dated 15. 01. 2018 is made absolute, subject to following conditions: (a) Petitioners shall make themselves 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) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c) Petitioners 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) Petitioners shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 12. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 13. 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 these applications alone. 14. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.