Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. M.P.(M) No.299 of 2010. Dated of Decision: April 20, 2010. Bhupinder Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. .…. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested on 22nd of October, 2009 in FIR No.135 of 2009, registered on 16.10.2009, under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail was denied to him by the Court of Sessions, as such, the petitioner approached this court, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for his enlargement on bail. Report filed. Heard. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix and petitioner are stated to be falling in prohibited degree but were in love. They developed the illicit relations. At that time, the prosecutrix was a student of 10+1 standard. After sometime, both of them fled away from their village and 2 took a room at village Sadoli near Baddi on rent. The father of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR and suspected the petitioner. Police started investigation of the case and both of them were recovered from their residential tenanted premises. Prosecutrix was in the bridal dress wearing Chura and other ornaments. Petitioner was arrested and the prosecutrix was handed over to her parents and then got medically examined. Police also took into possession the birth certificate along with school leaving certificate. Her skeletal age was also assessed and as per the opinion of the doctor, she was opined to be between 16 to 18 years of age. As per record of the Panchayat, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 27th May, 1993. The bail has been objected to on the ground that since the prosecutrix and petitioner fell in prohibited degree, which has generated hate and rage in the society and might cause unpleasant incidents and further that the petitioner will tamper with the prosecution evidence. Keeping in view the entire facts of the case, sifting of evidence at this stage is not required. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has a case for bail on reasonable conditions, more specifically when the challan has been presented and case is fixed for 29th April, 2010 for consideration of charge in the court of Sessions at Dharamshala. Therefore, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of 3 Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner:- (i) shall present himself in the trial court on 29.4.2010 and thereafter regularly as and when required till the completion of trial; (ii) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; and (iii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall keep peace during the period of trial. Needless to say that in case the petitioner would infract any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled Any observation made herein above, shall not affect the merits of this case. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra for necessary action at his end. In case the parties apply for urgent copy, it be supplied to them as per rules. Application stands disposed of. April 20, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.