IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 802 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Subhkaran …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, 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. 171 of 2011 dated 16.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There has been friendship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and both of them had decided to marry. The prosecutrix is currently 17 years old and herself accompanied the petitioner. As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix had changed 2 – 3 vehicles before reaching village Seri. The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm or objection from Trilokpur to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 Seri where she was found alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 16.7.2011. 3. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra on 9.9.2011. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that Jagdish Singh father of the prosecutrix lodged missing report on 15.7.2011 of prosecutrix at Police Post, Kotla. On this, prosecutrix and petitioner was recovered on 16.7.2011 at 7.00 a.m. from the house of Rajmal. The prosecutrix did not give any statement at that time but when she was away from the influence of the petitioner, then she made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 5. It has been stated by the prosecutrix that petitioner on 15.7.2011 on the pretext of marriage took her when she was near her school at Trilokpur. The petitioner had visited her residence earlier thrice. The petitioner changed atleast three vehicles. The petitioner took her to Seri and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her during night against her wish. In the morning, her father etc. reached Seri and recovered prosecutrix. She did not make any statement at that time out of fear. 6. In the status report it has been stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 22.7.1994. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 3 21.7.2011. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted on 13.10.2011. 7. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not kidnapped or enticed the prosecutrix. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix accompanied the petitioner from Trilokpur to Seri and changed atleast three vehicles. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the distance between Trilokpur to Seri is about 40 Kms. and there are number of shops and houses on the way. It is not believable that nobody noticed the objection, protest of the prosecutrix when she travelled from Trilokpur to Seri with petitioner. In fact, the prosecutrix of her own willingly accompanied the petitioner. In the police file, there is copy of date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix indicating her date of birth 22.7.1994. It means on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix was a week short of 17 years. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 171 of 2011 dated 16.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Jawali, District Kangra, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jawali with the condition that the petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 4 9. 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 14, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.