IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 245 of 2008 Date of decision: April 3, 2008. Masar Deen …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, 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 FIR No. 129 dated 12.12.2007, registered at Police Station, Chowari, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The learned Additional Advocate General has filed the status report. Heard and perused the record. 2. The facts in brief are that on the basis of rapat No. 4 dated 12.12.2007 recorded in rojnamcha, Police Post, Sihuntha at the instance of the prosecutrix, FIR No. 129 was registered at Police Station, Chowari on 12.12.2007, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC alleging therein that petitioner has committed rape on the prosecutrix and has also threatened to kill her. The further prosecution case is that on 8.12.2007, the prosecutrix had gone with her buffalos at village Jolna, her mother was also at Jolna and her mother asked her Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… to go back to their home at village Thanwara. The accused- petitioner also met her on the way which passes through the forest when prosecutrix was returning to her home. At about 6.00 p.m., the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the lintel of Bowri. He also threatened the prosecutrix not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise he would kill her. She came to her house at Thanwara where only her younger brothers and sisters were there. She did not disclose this fact to anybody out of fear. On the next day, she went to her mother at village Jolna and disclosed to her the happening of previous evening. The father of the prosecutrix had gone in the relations. He returned on 11.12.2007 and thereafter the prosecutrix accompanied with her father and another lady reported the matter to the police. 3. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The doctor in the MLC of the prosecutrix has recorded hymen ruptured and the radiological age of the prosecutrix is below 19 years i.e. between 13½ to 16½ years. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 9.11.1995 as per school certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner and the prosecutrix are related to each other but civil and criminal litigations are pending between the father of the prosecutrix and the petitioner. The father of the prosecutrix has falsely implicated the petitioner. The prosecutrix is more than 20 years of age. The petitioner is resident of village Benwar Sihuntha, Tehsil Bhattiyat and he will not jump the bail and comply with the conditions of bail in case he is released on bail. …3… 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that prosecutrix was about 13 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, which is supported by her date of birth certificate recorded in the school as well as by medical opinion. The doctor has found hymen of the prosecutrix ruptured. The prosecutrix has specifically named the petitioner for committing rape on her as well as for extending threats to kill her. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecutrix is 20 years of age and the doctor has not specifically given any opinion regarding sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the date of occurrence. As per school certificate the date of birth of prosecutrix is 9.11.1995. The radiological age of the prosecutrix is in between 13½ to 16½ years. The petitioner has earlier filed a bail application in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, which has been rejected on 4.3.2008. The petitioner has not made out any case for releasing him on bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 3, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.