IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 834 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.10.2011 Smt. Krishna Devi …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M.Negi, Dy. 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, 120-B, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Status report has been filed. 2. The allegations against the petitioner are that prosecutrix (having date of birth 30.3.1992) was studying in 10+1 in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Indora. She was taking tuition from accused Ranjit Pathania. The mother of the prosecutrix was interested in marrying the prosecutrix with Ranjit Pathania son of the petitioner. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 3. On 9.9.2008 Ranjit Pathania alongwith mother of the prosecutrix went to Indora Court, they forcibly obtained the signatures of the prosecutrix on some documents when prosecutrix was about 16 years of age. Ranjit Pathania used to maltreat and assault the prosecutrix. He committed rape on her. It is alleged that in April, 2010 prosecutrix went to Chandigarh and did not return due to fear of her mother and Ranjit Pathania and on these allegations the case was registered. It has been stated that the petitioner was arrested on 23.8.2011, who is now in judicial custody. The accused have prepared forged documents in conspiracy with each other and performed forceable marriage of the complainant, Ranjit Singh committed rape on the prosecutrix. Jai Pal Khera, Sanjay Kumar and Ravinder Kumar have been released on bail. The bail applications of Ranjit Pathania, Anita Sharma as well as petitioner have been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 14.9.2011. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. The application has been opposed by filing status report. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of either side and have also gone through the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are that she also helped in preparing the false documents and forced the prosecutrix to marry with Ranjit Pathania, who is the son of the petitioner. The investigation in the case is complete. The investigating agency has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.8.2011. The trial of the case will take some time. Jai Pal Khera, Sanjay Kumar and Ravinder Kumar have already been released on bail. 3 In the status report apprehension has been shown that in case the petitioner is released on bail then she is likely to win over the witnesses and influence the investigation. It appears this has been stated in routine inasmuch as the challan as per status report has already been submitted on 14.9.2011 and, therefore, there is no question of influencing the investigation by the petitioner. In any case, the law will take its own course in case the petitioner will interfere in any manner in the prosecution case. 5. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 207 of 2011 dated 18.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, under Sections 376(1), 506, 120-B, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 9, 10 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora with the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 6. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. October 28, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.