Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.335 of 2009. Dated of Decision: May 15, 2009. Som Nath Sain. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined by the court of sessions, as such, the instant application for the anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner, who is a medical doctor by profession and running a hospital under the head and style of “Syan Hospital’ at Bathri (Una). A notice of this application was given to the respondent-State. The report filed and matter considered. In short, the prosecution case is that the complainant was a Ward Sister, in a 2 private hospital at Balachour (Punjab). The petitioner was also working in the same hospital. In the year 2005, the petitioner contacted the complainant with a proposal to open a private Nursing Home together to which she agreed, thus the petitioner selected a site in village Bathri, district Una. In the month of May, 2006, the petitioner started his own Nursing Home and then persuaded the complainant to join him on a better salary. The complainant reposed the confidence and trust on him and joined his Nursing Home. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner proposed her to get married which was also not opposed. Thus, both of them reposed confidence on each other and developed the love affairs. In the month of December, 2006, the petitioner took the prosecutrix to a nearby temple and applied “tikka” on her forehead and told her that he had accepted her as his wife, but told her not to disclose this fact to any other person and he assured her to complete all the rituals later, when he would be fully settled down in his life. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse with her to which 3 there was no resistance as she treated himself to be his wife. In the month of February, 2009, the prosecutrix requested the accused-petitioner to perform the ceremonies of the marriage in the society to keep up his promise, but it was put off on one pretext or the other. Feeling perturbed due to the alleged attitude of the petitioner, the prosecutrix contacted Shri Pyare Lal Ex-Pradhan of village Bathri. He called the accused-petitioner and proclaimed that he had used the trick of applying “tikka” and “Sindoor” on the forehead of the prosecutrix in order to obtain her consent for sexual relations. In this way he is alleged to have dodged the prosecutrix. Her complaint filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure. The police registered a case under Section 376 and 406 of the Penal Code. The prosecutrix is about 30 years of age and she is matriculate. She had worked for a considerable time with the petitioner in his Nursing Home as well as prior to that. Both had developed intimacy which ripened into the 4 physical contacts. Now the prosecutrix is feeling ditched by the act and conduct of the petitioner. In the background of the above facts, the pre-arrest bail cannot be denied to the accused-petitioner. Pursuant to the last order, the petitioner had joined the investigation of this case. No recovery is to be effected from him and the custodial interrogation is also unnecessary. Without commenting upon the merits or demerits of the case, which may ultimately prejudice the case of any of the parties, suffice it to say that the petitioner has a case for bail, as such, the petition is allowed. Thus, the interim bail granted on 11.5.2009, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Any observations made hereinabove, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. The application stands disposed of. May 15, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.