IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.P (M) No. 94,95,96 and 97/2010 Date of decision: 4. 3. 2010 Cr.M.P. (M) No. 94/2010. Sandipa Chauhan ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Cr.M.P. (M) No. 95/2010. Suman Thakur ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Cr.M.P. (M) No. 96/2010. Pradeep Thakur ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Cr.M.P. (M) No. 97/2010. Surjit Thakur ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh (Oral) The above pre-arrest bail applications are disposed of by this 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - common order as having arisen from FIR No. 25/2010 registered on 2.2.2010 under Sections 363, 366, 354 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. In short, the allegations against the petitioners are that the prosecutrix, a student of 10+1, studying in Senior Secondary School Nankhari, was allegedly kidnapped to get her married with Manoj Kumar, younger brother of one of the petitioners Pradeep Kumar. During the intervening night of 2/3.2.2010, they are alleged to have taken her to Shoghi where they had stayed in the house of one Happy. Varinder Chauhan, husband of Sandeepa Chauhan took the prosecutrix from Shoghi to Nankhari and handed over her to the Police. At that time, FIR had already been lodged by Prem Sukh, father of the prosecutrix. The Police tried to get her medically examined, but she refused as according to her, nothing happened with her but it was later when she was handed over to the parents, she is alleged to have made the statement against the petitioners. Whatsoever evidence have been collected by the police so far, may not be - 3 - commented at this stage as it could prejudice the case of any of the parties but suffice it to say that the petitioners are involved in the case and apprehending their arrests in the non-bailable offences, aforesaid, as such their request for pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest is allowed. The interim bail granted on 5.2.2010 is confirmed subject to the condition that the petitioner:- (a) shall join the investigation of the case as and when required and shall also present himself in the court whenever required to do so; (b) shall not make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the Police officer. (c) Shall not indulge in any manner in such activity in future. (d) Shall not misuse their liberty of bail in any way. In case they do so, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. (e) The lady accused-petitioner shall be interrogated by the Police with due decency and also as per the directions/guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also by this Court from time to time. Any observation made hereinabove is strictly for the disposal of this bail - 4 - petition and shall not affect the merits of the case in any way. All the applications stand disposed of. (Surinder Singh),J March 4, 2010 (cm)