1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 890 of 2011. Date of decision: 11.11.2011. Inder Singh. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.62/2011 dated 17.06.2011, registered at Police Station ,Rajgarh, under Sections 376, 323, 452 IPC. 2. It has been stated that petitioner and Subhash are real brothers. Their father Kundan Singh has executed a Will in favour of petitioner and another brother Jai Dutt. Kundan Singh died on 14.10.2010. 3. It has been stated that prosecutrix has alleged in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that door of the cowshed was shut by the petitioner from inside whereas the cowshed is always closed from outside. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The story projected by the prosecutrix is highly improbable. The petitioner and husband of the prosecutrix have one house, cowshed is at a distance of about 20 feet from the house. The families of three brothers having 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes. 2 20-25 persons are living in the same house. The alleged witnesses are relatives. 4. It has been stated that on 17.06.2011 on account of Will dispute took place between Subhash husband of the prosecutrix and Jai Dutt and they suffered some injuries. The petitioner was having cordial relations with Jai Dutt, the petitioner was also supporting the Will and, therefore, false case has been registered against the petitioner. It has been stated that petitioner is innocent and is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 14.07.2011. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the prosecution case. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that in the M.L.C.the doctor has given the opinion that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse and sexual intercourse has happened, but it is not clear from the F.S.L.report that semen belongs to Inder Singh or not. It has been stated that challan has been submitted in the Court and is now fixed on 14.11.2011. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Subhash husband of the prosecutrix, petitioner and Jai Dutt are brothers, their father Kundan Singh has executed a Will in favour of petitioner and Jai Dutt. Kundan Singh has died on 14.10.2010. The petitioner has good relations with Jai Dutt . The father of the petitioner has excluded Subhash and his wife in the Will. On 3 17.06.2011 a dispute took place between Subhash and Jai Dutt. They suffered some injuries also. The petitioner intervened in support of Jai Dutt, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case. It has been submitted that prosecution case is highly improbable. 7. The learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 14.07.2011 has observed that abrasions and bruises were found on the person of prosecutrix as well as petitioner. The defence has projected the case that quarrel took place between Jai Dutt and Subhash on 17.06.2011, petitioner intervened and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Prima- facie, it is not understandable if quarrel took place between Subhash and Jai Dutt, why petitioner has been falsely implicated. It has been stated in the application that all the three brothers along with their families are residing in the same house, witnesses are also relatives. The prosecutrix is also residing in the same house. In these circumstances, it will not be proper to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Hence, application is dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 11, 2011. (Krt)