IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.359 of 2011. Date of decision: 24.05.2011 Amit Kumar … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This application has been preferred by the petitioner herein who has been accused for offences under Sections 376, 452 IPC and Sections 3(i)(xi)of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case against the petitioner is that on 23.3.2011 the prosecutrix lodged a report with the Police Station, Barmana, that on 22.3.2011 at about 8.30 A.M. she was alone with her children in the house as her husband had gone to participate in `Nalwari Fair’ at Bilaspur. The case is that her house is in an 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 isolated place. Her husband did not return and at around 9.00 P.M. she went to sleep, but at about 1.30 A.M. on the intervening night of 22nd/23rd March, 2011 the accused knocked the door and the moment she opened it he pushed her inside and committed sexual intercourse on her person without her consent. She was frightened and rang up her husband. Her husband rushed to his house and reached there at around 2.15 A.M. She disclosed the facts to her husband in the morning, though he had returned to his house at around 2.15 A.M. in the night. FIR was registered and she was medically examined. 3. The petitioner was arrested on the allegations made in the complaint and on the physical aspect having been prima facie established by the medical evidence on record. The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur on 3.5.2011 which was rejected on 12.5.2011 holding that on the material on record was sufficient to point an accusing finger at the petitioner. 4. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner herein seeking release on the ground that (a) the prosecutrix should have informed her husband immediately when the offence was committed which she did not do and waited till morning; (b) that this gap between the time when the prosecutrix was assaulted and the report lodged gave ample time to the prosecutrix as also her husband to lodge a false 3 complaint against the petitioner who, it is pleaded, had inimical relations with the husband of the prosecutrix and her family. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner herein. 5. At this stage, I dot find anything on the record to show that the petitioner has been falsely roped in because of inimical relations with prosecutrix, her husband or any of their family members or to get even with him. On the question of delay in lodging the FIR, it cannot be said to be fatal or can be used as a circumstance at this stage to allow the petitioner to be released immediately. What its effect is, can be assessed at the time of the trial on the evidence produced. I must also observe that prima facie, no women will drag her name into mud by leveling false accusation of sexual assault. This application is, therefore, rejected at this stage. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again in accordance with law. May 24, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.