JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 4 of 2018, dated 4.1.2018 under Sections 376-D, 313, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed. Record has also been produced. 3. Petitioner is in custody since 28.6.2018 in pursuance to the complaint lodged by victim alleging her violation by one Parminder Singh, Sarpanch, on the pretext of adopting her son, as she, after having matrimonial dispute with her husband Daljinderjot Singh, was living separately along with her son. It is further case of prosecutrix that in the month of September, 2017, she was asked by said Parminder Singh to accompany him to Baba Barbhag Singh without her son, as they had to walk a long distance and accordingly she accompanied him and at that time he was accompanied by his two friends, one of which was the petitioner Balwinder Singh. According to her before reaching Baba Barbhag Singh, they stayed in hotel Nardev in two rooms and in one room she and Parminder Singh had checked in and during evening she was made to consume liquor along with these three persons and according to her some intoxicant was mixed in the liquor, as a result of which she lost her consciousness and all of these three companions violated her during night and she came to know about it when, after gaining senses, she found herself naked on a double bed along with these three naked persons and she also noticed injuries on her private parts and breasts etc. and when she intended to make a complaint, they threatened to kill her and her child as well as her mother, who were residing at Sangroor and as there was no male member to protect them, she could not make the complaint. However, in November, 2017, she found herself pregnant and on disclosure of this fact, Parminder Singh had forced her for abortion by administering some medicine but there was partial miscarriage, resulting into surgical abortion on 23.11.2017 on the advice of doctor. However, in November, 2017, she found herself pregnant and on disclosure of this fact, Parminder Singh had forced her for abortion by administering some medicine but there was partial miscarriage, resulting into surgical abortion on 23.11.2017 on the advice of doctor. According to complainant, she was continuously being threatened by Parminder Singh, who had started avoiding her phone calls, therefore, she found herself totally insecure in Sangroor, but after gathering some courage with the help of certain friends, she lodged a complaint on 4.1.2018. 4. Parmidner Singh and Balbir Singh co-accused are still absconding and are not traceable, despite issuance of non-bailable warrants against them. 5. The investigation against the petitioner is complete and challan has been presented in the Court and next date of hearing is fixed for 15.1.2019 before learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una. 6. Petitioner has also placed on record, FIR No. 76 dated 9.3.2016, registered in Police Station, City Sangroor and FIR No. 59 dated 7.6.2018 registered in Police Station Longowal, District Sangroor, wherein complainant, therein, had alleged the involvement of present complainant (prosecutrix) and her mother along with others in commission of offence under Section 376 IPC in first case and commission of offence under Sections 494, 495, 496, 506, 420 and 120-B IPC. in the second FIR. 7. Without going into the correctness of these FIRs lodged against the complainant herein, I would like to observe that even in case of a woman of easy virtue, consent for violating her person cannot be taken as granted. Each and every incident is to be evaluated on the basis of peculiar evidence of that case and therefore, registration of cases against complainant cannot be a sole ground for enlarging a person alleged to have committed offence against the complainant subsequent to or prior to lodging of FIRs against the complainant. 8. Petitioner had also filed a bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Una, which was rejected mainly on the ground that bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant/co-accused Parminder Singh had already been dismissed by the said Court. 9. 8. Petitioner had also filed a bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Una, which was rejected mainly on the ground that bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant/co-accused Parminder Singh had already been dismissed by the said Court. 9. Main allegations of the complainant is against Parminder Singh, who is still absconding and the role of petitioner in the entire episode of alluring, misrepresenting and exploiting the complainant is entirely different than that of Parminder Singh, but main accused Parminder Singh, after dismissal of his anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge-II, is still absconding along with co-accused Balbir. 10. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that petitioner belongs to a place out of the State, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish local surety and to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. 11. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances placed before me by the petitioner as well as prosecution, coupled with the fact that the challan against the petitioner has been presented and there is no other allegation except the involvement of the petitioner in any other incident except present one occurred in September, 2017, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety, as proposed by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (iii) that he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial; (iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected; (v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner; (vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail; (v) that he shall not leave the territory of India without prior information. He shall furnish his temporary and permanent address along with Mobile Number/contact telephone numbers to the Investigating Officer and shall keep informing change in address/Mobile Number/telephone numbers, if any, to the concerned Police Station regularly, during the pendency of the trial. 12. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 13. In case the petitioner violate any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. 14. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 15. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. 16. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.