JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Bail petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 25. 06. 2017, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No. 111 of 2017, dated 22. 06. 2017, under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Amb District Una, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Sequel to order dated 27. 02. 2018, ASI Arjun Singh, Police Station, Amb, has come present in Court alongwith the record of the case. Record perused and returned. 3. 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, perusal whereof suggest that FIR, detailed hereinabove, came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of the complainant/ prosecutrix, on 22. 06. 2017. Complainant/ prosecutrix vide her complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, addressed to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, alleged that on 12. 6. 2017, at about 5:00 PM, bail petitioner visited her house at village Kinnu and requested her to purchase ladies clothes and accordingly complainant purchased two suits from the bail petitioner. Thereafter, bail petitioner developed friendly relation with the husband of the complainant and requested him to accompany him to Amb for a dinner. The complainant and her husband accepted the aforesaid proposal of dinner and came to Amb at the residence of the bail petitioner. Allegedly, bail petitioner made husband of the complainant/ prosecutrix to consume whisky, as a consequence of which, he fell unconscious. Complainant also alleged that on the same day accused also made her to drink cold drink, but she after having consumed the same became unconscious. The bail petitioner taking undue advantage of situation forcibly developed physical relation with the complainant. On the next day, accused provided Tea to the complainant and her husband in the morning and asked the husband of the complainant to accompany him to Mubarikpur, where his Tralla was parked. During this period, complainant remained in the rented house of the bail petitioner entire day. Bail petitioner, who had come back at 7:00 PM, again in the night of 13. 6. 2017 repeatedly sexually assaulted the complainant against her wishes. 4. On 14. 6. During this period, complainant remained in the rented house of the bail petitioner entire day. Bail petitioner, who had come back at 7:00 PM, again in the night of 13. 6. 2017 repeatedly sexually assaulted the complainant against her wishes. 4. On 14. 6. 2017, police came to the house of the bail petitioner alongwith husband of the complainant, whereafter he was taken to Police Station, Amb. Thereafter, complainant also visited the Police station, Amb and narrated the entire story to the police authority, but since no action was taken pursuant to her complaint, she after lapse of 8 days made the aforesaid complaint to learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, making therein prayer to register case against the bail petitioner. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as mentioned above, came to be registered against the bail petitioner. Status report reveal that on 14. 6. 2017 police had visited the house of the bail petitioner alongwith the husband of the complainant to effect the search and recovery, if any, in connection with theft case registered against the husband of the complainant. 5. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the status report, strenuously argued that no case, if any, is made out against the bail petitioner under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of IPC because admittedly on 14. 06. 2017 police had come to the house of the bail petitioner in connection with some theft allegedly committed by the husband of the complainant. He further contended that report nowhere suggest that on that day or even thereafter factum, if any, with regard to sexual assault allegedly committed by the bail petitioner was communicated/informed to the police authorities. He further contended that complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be lodged against the bail petitioner after expiry of 8 days at the behest of the complainant as a counter blast to the FIR registered against her husband in connection with theft case. 6. Lastly, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, contended that bare conduct of the complainant/prosecutrix itself suggests that she herself came to the house of the bail petitioner and at no point of time she was compelled by the bail petitioner. 6. Lastly, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, contended that bare conduct of the complainant/prosecutrix itself suggests that she herself came to the house of the bail petitioner and at no point of time she was compelled by the bail petitioner. Learned counsel representing the bail petitioner further contended that bail petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than nine months without there being any fault of him and as such, he deserve to be enlarged on bail, especially when challan stands filed in the competent Court of law. 7. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, contended that keeping in view the gravity of offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, bail petition deserves to be dismissed out rightly. Mr. Thakur, while referring to the record fairly admitted that on 14. 06. 2017 when police visited the house of the bail petitioner in connection with some theft case registered against the husband of the complainant, no complaint of sexual assault was registered by the complainant/prosecutrix against the bail petitioner, rather she kept mum for eight days, whereafter she made a complaint to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb for issuing direction to the police for registration of the case against the bail petitioner. Mr. Thakur, further contended that bail petitioner is resident of other State and in case he is ordered to be enlarged on bail, it may be difficult for investigating agency to procure his presence during the trial. He also stated that though investigation in the case is complete but report of RFSL is yet awaited and as such, bail petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record made available. 9. He also stated that though investigation in the case is complete but report of RFSL is yet awaited and as such, bail petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and carefully gone through the record made available. 9. After having carefully perused the record/status report, this Court finds considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel representing the bail petitioner that there is no evidence adduced on record, at this stage by the investigating agency suggestive of the fact that complainant/prosecutrix was compelled by the bail petitioner to visit his house, rather it has clearly come in the evidence that complainant/prosecutrix visited the house of the bail petitioner alongwith her husband on their own and they stayed there for couple of days. Interestingly, as per the complaint lodged by the complainant she was subjected to sexual assault against her wishes by the bail petitioner on the night of 12/13th June, 2017, but she never disclosed this fact to her husband, who was in the house of the bail petitioner till 13th June, 2017. Complainant herself stated in her complaint that in the morning of 13th June, 2017 she and her husband was served with Tea by the bail petitioner, but it is not understood that if complainant was subjected to sexual assault, then why she failed to disclose this fact to her husband. Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that on 14th June, 2017 when police visited the house of bail petitioner in connection with theft case registered against the husband of the complainant, complainant made a complaint, if any, to police against the bail petitioner, disclosing therein that she was subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner on 13/14th June, 2018 against her wishes, rather she chose to remain silent for eight days, whereafter she filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb. 10. After having perused the material adduced on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the bail petitioner that complainant, who is admittedly married lady, had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition. 10. After having perused the material adduced on record, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel representing the bail petitioner that complainant, who is admittedly married lady, had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of the material available on record by the investigating agency, but this Court having perused the material available on record sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially when challan stands filed in the competent Court of law. Moreover, this Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that the bail petitioner is in custody for the last nine months. 11. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period as it is of utmost importance. Similarly, guilt, if any, of bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law and as such, prayer having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be considered. As far as apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General with regard to possibility of petitioner''s absconding from the trial is concerned, same can be met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions, as has been fairly submitted by the learned counsel representing the bail petitioner. 12. 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 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. " 13. 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. 14. Law with regard to grant of bail is now well settled. The apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharashtra and others , 2011 1 SCC 694 , while relying upon its decision rendered by its Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab , 1980 2 SCC 565 , laid down the following parameters for grant of bail:- "111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia''s case that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr. P. C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused''s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. " 15. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI , 2017 5 SCC 218 , The Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under: " This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. This Court sounded a caveat 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 a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted. " 16. 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 categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed for indefinite period. Hon''ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of accused is not proved in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras No. 2 to 5 of the judgment are reproduced 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. 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. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 17. 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; (viii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (ix) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 18. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs 50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Judicial Magistrate, 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 him/her 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. 19. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 20. 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 petition stands accordingly disposed of.