IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1045 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.12.2011 Ranjeet Singh son of late Sh. Madan Singh, resident of village Bari, P.O. Kandrori, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra (H.P.) …. Petitioner Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 207 of 2011 dated 18.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, under Sections 376(1), 506, 120B, 420, 468, 471, 201 IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner had been residing as a tenant in the house of prosecutrix, whose mother was interested to marry the prosecutrix with the petitioner. The petitioner intended to go to abroad and had made preparations for Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 obtaining passport. The prosecutrix was misguided by her grandfather Sai Dass and grand mother and, therefore, FIR No. 207 was registered on 18.6.2011. Jai Pal Khera, Naib Tehsildar, Ravinder Kumar, Teacher, Sanjay Kumar, Typist, Anita Sharma, mother of prosecutrix, Krishna Devi Sharma, mother of the petitioner and petitioner were taken into custody. The first three persons have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala on 5.9.2011. Krishna Devi Sharma has been released on bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 834 of 2011 on 28.10.2011, Anita Sharma has also been released on bail by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No. 925 of 2011 on 22.11.2011. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala on 5.9.2011. 3. It has been stated that Section 173 Cr.P.C. report has been filed in the Court. There are many contradictions in the allegations against Anita Sharma and the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix has attained the age of majority in March, 2010 and FIR has been lodged on 18.6.2011. The prosecutrix has refused to undergo medical examination. The petitioner has been unnecessarily roped in the case on false grounds. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by filing status report. It has been stated in the status report that the case has been registered by the prosecutrix, who came to the Police Station alongwith Sai Dass. She gave her date of birth 30.3.1992. She has stated that on 9.9.2008 she had gone to Indora school, during recess she was called 3 outside the school. She saw petitioner standing near the gate of the school. She was told that her mother was sick and she was asked to go to home. She took permission from the school and went to her home alongwith the petitioner. 5. In her house she found her mother and Smt. Krishna, mother of the petitioner. All of them asked her to go to Indora, they did not tell her the reason for going to Indora. They forced her to wear bridal dress/articles and took her to Tehsil premises. They obtained her signatures on some papers and told that she got married with petitioner. She was 16 years at that time and was against her marriage. They forced her to marry with the petitioner. She was afraid of their threats and, therefore, she could not disclose this fact to anybody and could not report the matter to the police. 6. The petitioner had several times sexual intercourse with her against her wish after forced marriage. She was left in the house of her maternal grand mother in May, 2009 at Rait. They had been visiting Rait also. She thereafter had gone to Chandigarh for training. She could not visit her house because of fear of her mother and petitioner. On this case was registered. It has been stated in the status report that in the papers got prepared from the petitioner the date of birth of prosecutrix has been shown 30.3.1991 against her actual date of birth 30.3.1992. In some papers, there are cuttings and over-writings. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 15.9.2011 and supplementary challan on 8.11.2011. The prosecution sanction against Jai Pal Khera has not been received. The case has been fixed before Additional Sessions Judge-I, 4 Dharamshala on 12.1.2012. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 7. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all accused except petitioner have been released on bail in the case. The alleged offence was committed on or about 9.9.2008 and the FIR has been registered on 18.6.2011. The prosecutrix has refused to undergo medical examination. The petitioner is in custody since 19.6.2011. The challan has been submitted in the Court. There are material contradictions in the prosecution case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the petitioner is the main accused. The role played by the petitioner is different from the role played by other accused and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground of parity. 8. It emerges from the prosecution case that prosecutrix was forcibly got married with petitioner on 9.9.2008, on that date as per prosecution she was plus 16 years. The prosecutrix has alleged that after her forced marriage the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her several times against her wish. She was given beatings and threats and, therefore, she could not report the matter earlier. The prosecutrix has alleged that even her mother was involved with other accused for her forced marriage with petitioner. The allegations against accused, who have been released on bail are different, but in so far the petitioner is concerned against him allegations are direct and more serious. No doubt, on the date of alleged commission of offence under Section 376 5 IPC the prosecutrix was above 16 years as her date of birth according to the prosecution is 30.3.1992. But prosecutrix has stated that she was forcibly married with petitioner by other accused and thereafter petitioner several times had sexual intercourse with her against her wish. The prosecutrix has also alleged that she was kept under threat and because of fear she could not report the matter earlier. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at present. He is at liberty to renew the bail application after recording the statement of the prosecutrix in the trial. The bail petition is rejected. 10. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. December 27, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.