ORDER : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No.24/2022 dated 14.3.2022, under Section 376 (2), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection from Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 14.3.2022, the victim made a statement before the police, under Section 154 Cr. P.C alleging therein that she is studying in 11th Class and was residing in the house of her maternal grand parents. She knew the petitioner for the last more than one year and they started talking and meeting with each other. On 28.12.2021 around 9:00 p.m., when she was alone in her room, petitioner came there and they talked for a while with each other, thereafter, the petitioner forcibly committed rape upon her despite her objection and threatened her to kill her, if she raised any alarm. On the allegations of the victim/prosecutrix, FIR No.24/2022 dated 14.3.2022, under Section 376 (2), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection from Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, was registered against the petitioner. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant bail application may be dismissed, as the petitioner has committed a serious offence and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the instant bail petition may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith father of the petitioner on instructions states that in fact the petitioner and prosecutrix have already married and they were living happily, as husband and wife and they want to continue with their relation. He has argued that due to their remote area and the practices in vogue the marriage has taken place. He has further argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant bail petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Investigation is complete and even challan stands presented in the learned trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant petition. 8. It has been argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, so the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by allowing the instant petition. 8. At this stage, considering the facts that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, the investigation is complete, even challan stands presented in the learned trial Court, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for any purpose, also considering the facts that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the bail, in case he is enlarged on bail and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record and without elaborately discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, in case FIR No.24/2022 dated 14.3.2022, under Section 376 (2), 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection from Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, be forthwith released on bail on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/police/authorities as and when required. ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. iii. That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for adjudication of the present case and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.