JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. - Inspector Mast Ram, of Woman Police Station-Nahan, Distt. Sirmour, HP was present at the time of hearing. He had filed status report and had also brought the police file. I have seen the status report as well as the police file to the extent it was necessary for the purpose of the present petition and the same stands returned to the police official. Status report is also taken on record. 2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was serving in the Indian Army and had joined the investigation as and when the Investigating Officer so directed him. Ld. Additional Advocate General did not dispute this averment. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 4. The present petition is under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.38/18 dated 29-12-2018, registered at Women Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 420, 376, 377, 90, 120B, 328, 406, 344, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is as follows: a) The victim (prosecutrix) made a written complaint to Superintendent of Police Nahan, District-Sirmour, HP requesting that FIR be registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 376, 377, 90, 190B, 328, 192, 34, 344, 504 and 506 of IPC as well as appropriate Sections of Information Technology Act. b) She states that she was married to the petitioner Sh. Dhanvir Singh on 16th October, 2007 and she continued to live in her matrimonial home and a son was born to the couple. She further states that other relations of her husband also resides in the vicinity of her matrimonial home. c) Out of these relatives Mahima Singh, Balvinder Kaur and Charanjeet Singh were keeping inimical relations with her because one marriage proposal recommended by her had failed and ended in the divorce. d) She further states that her father-in-law was a ward member of Patlion Panchayat for last 20 and 25 years and is a very influential person. When seat of ward members was reserved for ladies she was made to contest elections and her signatures were also obtained by pressure on some papers. d) She further states that her father-in-law was a ward member of Patlion Panchayat for last 20 and 25 years and is a very influential person. When seat of ward members was reserved for ladies she was made to contest elections and her signatures were also obtained by pressure on some papers. She further states that she did not receive any remuneration to this post and everything was done by her father-in-law and she hardly went to Gram Sabha meetings for 3-4 times and all the documents were got singed by her father-in-law. e) Another set of allegations is against her husband (the present petitioner) in which she states had married her due to family pressure and want to divorce her. To meet his objective, her husband alongwith other relatives, hatched criminal conspiracy against her. In the year 2017, some time before September, 2017 her brother-in-law would take phone of the victim on the pretext of calling and he started sending immoral messages from her phone to one Amanpreet Singh who was also related to her husband. f) At that time, her husband who is serving in Indian Army was posted at Jalandhar and when he returned to home, he took up this issue. She further says in fact her husband, the present petitioner, conspired sending these messages. g) The next set of her allegations is that around one or two years before 2018, all these relatives mixed some poisonous substance in her tea and made immoral nude video of her. Video was secretly kept in the mobile phone of Charanjeet Singh. She was threatened that in case she does not agree to give divorce to her husband then the video will be made public and messages will be sent to her father. h) Another set of her allegations is that all these people further threatened her that if she does not agree to give divorce to present petitioner, her son would be killed. On these grounds she was also beaten up by her husband, who not only spitted on her but also passed urine on her face. I) Another allegation is that some time in February, 2018 she was held in captivity for 15-20 days and was locked inside a room. During this she was never allowed to meet any person of the village nor was allowed to talk to her parents or family members. I) Another allegation is that some time in February, 2018 she was held in captivity for 15-20 days and was locked inside a room. During this she was never allowed to meet any person of the village nor was allowed to talk to her parents or family members. J) She further stated that she was so frightened due to these coercive acts and threats that eventually she succumbed to the pressure tactics of her husband and she applied for mutual divorce as her husband pointed gun towards her son and threatened her that he would kill her son. She says that all members of her in-laws have guns and they threatened her by firing. K) She further says that her statement was recorded in the Court under fear, coercion, compulsion and fear of death or death of her son. She did not bring all these facts to the notice of the Ld. Court because life of her son was at risk. l) She admits that her husband had deposited amount of alimony in her account. m) That even after obtaining divorce her husband ( the present petitioner) kept her in his house and did not allow talking to her parents or others. During this period the husband committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and also forced unnatural sex upon her which totally shattered her. n) That on dated 08-12-2018 again under a similar account forced me to write on blank paper everything which they have kept to be used at appropriate time. Her certificates were also forcibly taken away. She further states that her Jewellery items were further taken away. o) The next set of evidence is that on 10th of December, 2018 all these persons using similar threats forced her to perform marriage with Sh. Amanpreet Singh at Gurudwara and SDM Court Poanta Sahib and get it scribed and entered in the Gurudwara marriage register and Sh. Jagdeep Singh has falsely represented himself as her father in marriage certificate. p) She says that she went to SDM Court Poanta Sahib where marriage was registered. q) She says that thereafter at the same time, she got herself rescued from the clutches of the petitioner and visited his father and told him the entire story. Jagdeep Singh has falsely represented himself as her father in marriage certificate. p) She says that she went to SDM Court Poanta Sahib where marriage was registered. q) She says that thereafter at the same time, she got herself rescued from the clutches of the petitioner and visited his father and told him the entire story. She alleges that these peoples are criminal and they have harassed her and tortured her and fabricated false evidence against her and she requested for appropriate action. 6. A bare reading of this complaint does not convince, about the truthfulness and credibility of the victim. On these kind of allegations to deprive liberty of a person may amount to doing injustice to him at this stage. On such type of allegations the sentencing cannot be preponed, which ultimately commences after the guilt is proved. 7. In the status report, there is no mention of previous criminal history of the bail petitioner. The petitioner is a native and permanent resident of Himachal. Therefore, his presence can always be secured. 8. In the result the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. 9. This Court is granting the protection subject to the conditions mentioned in this order. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: 10. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. It shall be open for the Investigating Officer to call him as and when he feels such a necessity. The petitioner undertakes to appear before Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so. 11. The Petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. 12. The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant, to threaten or browbeat him or to use any pressure tactics. 13. The petitioner undertakes to appear before Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so. 11. The Petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. 12. The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant, to threaten or browbeat him or to use any pressure tactics. 13. The Petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. 14. The Petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. 15. The Petitioner undertakes not to commit any offence. However, this condition shall not include strict liability offences. It is expected that the petitioner shall live like a good citizen. 16. In case the of the launching of the prosecution, the petitioner undertakes to attend the trial and to appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court. 17. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 18. Dasti Copy.