Sandeep Sharma JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Apprehending his arrest, bail petitioner namely Gulshan Mohammad, has approached this Court by way of instant petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 34/18, dated 18.2.2018, registered at PS Amb, District Una, H.P., under Section 376 of IPC,
2. Sequel to order dated 6.3.2018, whereby bail petitioner has been ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest, ASI Raj Kumar, P.S. Amb, District Una, H.P., has come present along with records. Record perused and returned. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency, perusal whereof suggests that aforesaid FIR came to be lodged against the bail petitioner at the behest of the complainant-prosecutrix, who alleged that after the death of her husband in the year, 2007, bail petitioner approached her with a proposal of marriage, as his wife had also expired. Bail petitioner assured the complainant that he would look after her children after marriage and as such, complainant believing the bail petitioner to be good person, developed physical relations with him. Subsequently, in the year, 2010, accused representing himself to be Hindu, solemnized marriage with the complainant at Village Indora.
3. Complainant further alleged that she being a simpleton lady, never moved out of the house of the bail petitioner without his permission, but in the year, 2016, complainant came across a document, which revealed that bail petitioner is not a Hindu, rather he is a Mohammedan. Complainant further alleged that bail petitioner also changed name of her minor son from Anmol to Anmol Mohd. When complainant confronted the bail petitioner with the aforesaid fact, he gave her beatings and started hurling abuses at her. Recently, through multimedia and newspaper, it came to the notice of the complainant that the accused made a public statement that the complainant is not the wife of the bail petitioner-accused. In the aforesaid background, matter came to be reported to the police station Amb, against the bail petitioner under Section 376 IPC.
4. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, representing the petitioner while making reference to the record/status report vehemently contended that no case much less under Section 376 IPC, is made out against the bail petitioner and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. While inviting attention of this court to the complaint lodged by the complainant-prosecutrix, Mr. Digvijay contended that there is no specific allegation in the complaint that she was compelled by the bail petitioner to solemnize marriage and thereafter, to develop physical relations with the complainant, rather she of her own volition stayed with the bail petitioner for more than six years and during this period, she never lodged any complaint either to the police station or gram panchayat. Lastly, Mr. Digvijay, contended that investigation in the case is almost complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner at this stage and as such, there is no occasion for the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioner.
5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions from Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly admitted that sequel to order dated 6.3.2018, petitioner has joined the investigation and is fully cooperating with the investigating agency. Mr. Thakur, further contended that at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but taking note of the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, rather n........