IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.367 of 2009 Date of decision : 26.6.2009. Daulat Ram & Others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K.Thakur,Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant, Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No. 20 of 2009 dated 11.5.2009 registered at Police Station, Shillai under Sections 452, 354, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC. Status report has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 4.5.2009 Kiri Devi wife of Sh. Tulsi Ram submitted a complaint to Addl. S.P. Nahan which was received in the Police Station on 9.5.2009. SI/SHO in order to verify the facts went to village Borad where Kiri Devi complainant refused to make any statement, a rapat No. 16 dated 9.5.2009 to this effect was entered. SI//SHO ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes. 2 went to Village Borad again on 11.5.2009 and after preliminary inquiry commission of offence under Sections, 452, , 354, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC was established. 3. The case was registered. Kiri Devi, her sister Hirmo Devi, brother-in-law Bali Ram and President Gulabi Devi were joined in the investigation. During investigation, it was alleged that at about 1.00 a.m. during night Bansi Ram entered in the room. He opened the string of the salwar of complainant and raped her. The complainant cried and she narrated the incident to Hirmo Devi, Bansi Ram ran away from the spot. She narrated the incident to her husband on his return who terminated the engagement of Bansi Ram, who was engaged by him as mason for construction of second storey of the house and other masons were engaged but Bansi Ram did not allow them to work. 4. It has been alleged that one day at about 8.30 a.m. when complainant returned home along with fodder, she saw that Bansi Ram, Laiq Ram, Daulat Ram, Suresh Pratap Singh were giving beatings to her husband. Bansi Ram was having a stone and a danda with which he gave beatings to her husband who fell down on the ground, her husband sustained many injuries on his person. The husband of the complainant was taken to Harbertpur and thereafter, he was referred to PGI. Bansi Ram and other accused told the complainant and her sister that they would bear the expenses of the treatment of the husband of the complainant and therefore, they requested complainant and her sister not to report the matter to the police. In these circumstances, the matter was not reported to the police. Hirmo Devi sister of the complainant in her statement has stated that Tulsi Ram sustained injuries due to fall. On discharge from PGI, he was taken to Nahan but he was again referred to PGI. Tulsi Ram injured is not in a position to make statement. 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. According to learned counsel for the petitioners Hirmo Devi is another wife of injured Tulsi Ram. Kiri Devi and Hirmo Devi both wives of Tulsi Ram have given contradictory versions how Tulsi Ram had sustained injuries. The petitioners were released on pre-arrest bail on 18.5.2009 and they have joined the investigation. The petitioners are ready to furnish the bail bonds as per directions of this Court. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application but he has not denied the fact that petitioners have joined the investigation. He has submitted that Tulsi Ram had sustained serious injuries. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Kiri Devi complainant and Hirmo Devi, have given different versions how Tulsi Ram sustained injuries. Kiri Devi has even alleged her rape but no case under Section 376 IPC has been registered. As per prosecution, Tulsi Ram is not in a position to make statement. The petitioners have joined the investigation. There is delay in lodging the FIR also. I am not dilating more on the prosecution case so that it may not prejudice the case of either side. In the total facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, application is allowed. The petitioners in the event of arrest, are ordered to be released on bail by Arresting Officer in FIR No.20 of 2009, under Sections 452, 354, 307, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station, Shillai, on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that the petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. 4 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. June 26, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.