Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.204 of 2010. Dated of Decision: March 30, 2010. Gurpreet Singh. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner is lodged in the jail since 29.11.2008, in FIR No.423/2008, registered on 18.11.2008 in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. under Sections 354, 363, 366, 376 (2)(g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Heard and gone through the report and perused the certified copies of the statements of the complainant and prosecutrix. These statements be taken on record. It is alleged that the petitioner alongwith other co- accused had ravished the teenagers on 16.2.2008 and thereafter on 21.2.2008. When the complainant had gone to her school to appear in ‘Hindi’ paper during annual examination, she was called by her friend after finishing her paper. She came out of the examination hall 2 and met her. Accused Manjeet Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner was standing with his vehicle outside. He gave a lift and took them towards ‘Vikas Nagar’, on the pretext to have a fun-round. They visited Basera Lodge at Takrani (Uttarakhand). Manjeet Singh accused took nude photographs of both the teenagers with his mobile, thereafter they returned to Paonta Sahib same evening. Later, he is alleged to have blackmailed them to submit to his desire. It was later in the month of November, 2008 when there was rumor in the school of the complainant that said Manjeet Singh had nude photographs of these girls and this rumor spread in the town, one of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR with the police. Prosecution witness had also got transferred their nude photographs through blue tooth on his mobile, which were handed over to police. During the investigation of this case, it was alleged that earlier to 3rd March, 2008, both the prosecutrix were gang raped by Manjeet Singh and his brother Gurpreet Singh alias Raju the present petitioner in the house of accused Harjeet Singh alias Raja. Challan in this case on completion was presented in the Court. Accused persons stand charge-sheeted for the above offences. The statements of some of the witnesses including both the teenagers were recorded. Although, they alleged having taken their nude photographs by the co-accused Manjeet Singh, but they specifically denied the allegation of rape by the petitioner Gurpreet Singh alias Raju. Now the case is fixed for recording remaining evidence of the prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan on 16.4.2010. 3 In view of the above situation, more particularly, when the allegation of gang rape is denied by the complainant as well the prosecutrix, in my opinion, the bail to the petitioner cannot be denied as he had not taken part in taking nude photographs. Therefore, his request for bail is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan and this bail shall be subject to the following conditions that the petitioner: (i) shall not terrorize the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner; (ii) shall present himself in the court on 16th and 17th of April, 2010, on which dates the case is fixed for evidence of the prosecution and thereafter on all the dates during the trial; and (iii) shall not 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 truly to the court or to any police officer. In case the petitioner shall make breach of any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of his bail shall be cancelled. Any observations made in this order, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. 4 An authenticated copy be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for his intimation and necessary action at his end. In case the parties apply application for urgent copies, it be supplied to them as per rules. March 30, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.