IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.210 of 2008 Decided on: March 28, 2008. Dev Raj …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr K.R.Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.56/2007 dated 29.8.2007, registered at Police Station, Bhawa Nagar under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 I.P.C. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case, in brief, is that prosecutrix came in contact with the petitioner who allured her that he would marry her. On 24.8.2007 the prosecutrix met the petitioner and both left to Rampur and stayed together at Rampur. On 25.8.2007, the prosecutrix was taken to Kullu by the accused. The prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner was already married. The petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from 24.8.2007 to 27.8.2007 under the promise of marriage. On 28.8.2007, the prosecutrix was taken back by her Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… parents. The father of the prosecutrix brought the matter to the notice of police at Banjar and F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Bhawa Nagar. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 19.6.1992. The doctor after examining the prosecutrix has opined that prosecutrix has ruptured hymen. He also found slight redness on her private parts. As per medical opinion of the petitioner, he is fully capable of performing sexual act. The petitioner earlier filed bail application in the Court below which has been rejected on 8.2.2008. 3. The petitioner in the bail application has submitted that he had developed intimacy with the prosecutrix and members of her family wanted to marry her with the petitioner. The petitioner told the prosecutrix that he was already married having two children and cannot marry her. The father of the prosecutrix threatened the petitioner that he would implicate him in the case in case the petitioner would not marry the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had represented to the petitioner that she was major. The petitioner is 21 years old and permanent resident of village Sarot, Tehsil, Banjar. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in case petitioner is released on bail he will comply with the bail order. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that as per birth certificate of the prosecutrix, she was about 15 years and 2 months at the time of commission of offence. At the time of examination of the prosecutrix on 30.8.2007, the doctor found matting of pubic hair and wet, hymen ruptured, slight redness etc. In the bail application, the petitioner has submitted that he had developed intimacy with the prosecutrix. As …3… per medical certificate of the prosecutrix, it cannot be said at this stage that sexual intercourse was not committed with her, as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecutrix remained with the petitioner for about 4 days, the needle of suspicion is pointing the involvement of the petitioner in the case. The prosecutrix in her statement has also named the petitioner for committing sexual intercourse with her. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case has been made out for releasing the petitioner on bail and the application is dismissed accordingly. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 28, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)