IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.721 of 2009. Date of decision: 2.9.2009. Dina Nath …… Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in FIR No.4 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Pangi, District Chamba under Section 376 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been alleged in the application that the offence was allegedly committed on 19.3.2009 but no explanation has been given why the FIR was not lodged promptly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student and innocent. He has been falsely Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes implicated in the case. It has been submitted that even medical of the prosecutrix was done on 24.3.2009 even though the FIR was registered on 21.3.2009. There is no explanation why the prosecutrix was medically examined so late. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that most of the investigation was complete before the medical examination of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested only 22.5.2009. The investigation in the case is complete and even the challan has been filed in the Court. The continuous detention of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on 2.7.2009. A prayer has been made for grant of bail to the petitioner in FIR No.4 of 2009. 3. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that the case was registered on 21.3.2009 on the statement of the prosecutrix. The status report indicates that statement of prosecutrix was recorded in local language, however the statement of prosecutrix was got translated in Hindi by HHC Bhagwan Dass. According to the prosecutrix at 6 p.m. in the evening she had gone to the shop of Lachhi in the village for purchasing some articles. After purchasing articles she was returning to her home, accused Dina Nath was already standing near Primary School. He forcibly pulled her and took in the school varanda and opened string of her salwar and raped her. She started crying but the accused shut her mouth with her shawl. Thereafter he left the place, she was mentally disturbed and therefore, could not report the matter earlier. She came alongwith her mother to lodge the report. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that prosecutrix in her statement has clearly stated that she was raped by the accused. The doctor in the medical of the prosecutrix has also opined that rape cannot be ruled out. As per birth certificate placed on the police file the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 20.6.1991. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the statement of mother of the prosecutrix. She has stated that her husband has died. On 19.3.2009 when prosecutrix returned in the evening at about 5.30 p.m. after purchasing some articles from the shop, the prosecutrix disclosed while weeping that Dina Nath had raped her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR but whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there is any delay in lodging the FIR will be seen during trial. The prosecutrix has levelled accusation of rape against accused which on material particulars has been corroborated by her mother. The doctor has also given the opinion that the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. The age of the prosecution is not material when she has alleged that the accused has performed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The learned Sessions Judge has already rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 2.7.2009 and except for filing of the challan no change of circumstance has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the facts emerging from the file the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Resultantly, bail application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge September 2, 2009 (sks)