JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail of petitioner in case FIR No. 243 of 2020, dated 14.7.2020, registered under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in Police Station Balh, District Mandi Himachal Pradesh 2. Status report stands filed. Investigation record was also summoned and perused. 3. It is stated in status report that on 14.7.2020, prosecutrix had submitted her statement stating therein that no child has born during one year of her matrimonial life because of her health problem, and it has been told to her that it is because of curse of Narsingh (Devta) (local Deity). Further that her sister-in-law had informed her that one Tantrik namely Lohari Ram (petitioner), resident of village Dhunda Thana used to treat such disease, whereupon on 9th July, 2020, she, after taking permission of her family members, came to Dhunda Thana and met petitioner at his residence. His wife Purno Devi was also there. She had explained her problem to petitioner/accused, who, had assured to resolve her problem, but with condition that she had to reside there for two months and two days to drink water given by him, for which, she had agreed. Thereafter, petitioner had provided a bed to her in his room, separate to the bed of petitioner. Next day, on 10th July, 2020, at 7 AM, petitioner had given water to her for consumption and had told that after one hour, she had to have intercourse with him, for which, she had refused. But after one hour petitioner had violated her forcibly after bolting both doors. During that night, her husband had come to the place and stayed with her, whereas petitioner had gone somewhere else to sleep, but, she did not disclose the incident to her husband for the reason that petitioner had asked her not to disclose the same. 4. As per statement of prosecutrix, next day, on 11th July, 2020, petitioner had taken her and her husband to the temple of Jogni Mata situated near his house. After performing puja in that temple, he had given water to consume. Her husband had returned home from temple and she had accompanied the petitioner to his house, where after taking meals, despite her refusal, petitioner had again ravished her. She had stayed there on that night also. After performing puja in that temple, he had given water to consume. Her husband had returned home from temple and she had accompanied the petitioner to his house, where after taking meals, despite her refusal, petitioner had again ravished her. She had stayed there on that night also. On 12th July, 2020, petitioner had again forced her to indulge in sexual intercourse and thereafter on 13.7.2020 when petitioner was not at home, she had disclosed entire episode to Purno Devi wife of petitioner, to whom she had been addressing Dadi (grandmother). She was living separately from petitioner in a separate room. For want of signal, prosecutrix could not inform her husband telephonically, whereupon Purno Devi had gone to Chail Chowk to inform her husband about the entire episode. On that night, prosecutrix stayed at Dhunda Thana but did not go to room of petitioner and had slept in the room of Purno Devi after bolting the door and on 14th July, 2020, in the morning, she came to Chail chowk by traveling on foot upto Movisairi and thereafter by bus and met her husband and disclosed everything to him. After that Purno Devi had also met them and trio went to Police Station for lodging the complaint. 5. On the basis of statement of prosecutrix, FIR was registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and investigation was carried on and petitioner was arrested on 16.7.2020. 6. On 16.7.2020, statement of prosecutrix was also recorded before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Mandi under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she had deposed that on 14.7.2020 when she was going to her home, an unknown person had met her, who was wearing goggles, and had covered his face with handkerchief and that person had pressurized her to lodge a complaint of rape against petitioner Lohari Ram. He was knowing her husband and had threatened to kill her husband for not acceding to his plan. She had further stated that petitioner had not violated her and that she intended to withdraw her complaint. 7. On 19.7.2020 prosecutrix was again interrogated and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in presence of her husband and father and the same was also video-graphed and in this statement also, she reiterated her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and again stated that petitioner had not violated her in any manner. 8. 7. On 19.7.2020 prosecutrix was again interrogated and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in presence of her husband and father and the same was also video-graphed and in this statement also, she reiterated her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and again stated that petitioner had not violated her in any manner. 8. It is further reported in status report that during investigation, except the statement made by prosecutrix on the first day, on the basis of which FIR was lodged, no other evidence has been found to substantiate the plea of prosecutrix, with respect to violation of her person by the petitioner. 9. It is also stated in status report that Purno Devi, in her statement, has stated that she had come to know about the wrong act of petitioner on its disclosure to her by prosecutrix, but, now prosecutrix has resiled from her earlier statement and is refusing occurrence of any such incident. 10. From statement of Purno Devi, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is also evident that relations of Purno Devi and petitioner Lohari Ram are not good and they are not only residing in separate rooms, but, also cooking their food in one kitchen, but separately at their own and are not using the kitchen at one and same time, but, at different hours as per their mutual adjustment. 11. Supplementary statement of husband of prosecutrix has also been recorded on 19.7.2020, wherein he has endorsed the second statement of his wife (prosecutrix), wherein she has narrated that earlier complaint made by her was under pressure of some unknown person and therefore, he has further stated that statement of prosecutrix made on 14th July, 2020, on the basis of which FIR was registered, is not correct, but, her latest statement is correct. 12. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and material placed before me and also statements made by prosecutrix and her husband, I find that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and material placed before me and also statements made by prosecutrix and her husband, I find that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 35,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court i.e. Sessions Judge, Mandi within three weeks, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall make himself available during investigation as well as the trial on each and every date 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 her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. She shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses; (ii) That he shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation as well as trial; (iii) That he shall not jump over the bail and shall inform, in writing, regarding change of address, land line number and/or mobile number, if any, in advance, to concerned Police Station. (v) That the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected or the commission of which he is suspected. (vi) That petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 14. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing any such other or further condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. It will also open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 15. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon them, 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. 16. 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 18.3.2013. 17. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon them, 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. 16. 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 18.3.2013. 17. Any observation made herein above shall not be considered to evaluate the evidence during trial as the same shall be confined to have been made for purpose of adjudication of this petition only. 18. Petition stands disposed of. Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of this bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Dasti copy on usual terms.