1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 946 of 2011. Date of decision: 28.11.2011. Anil Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh , Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.41/2011 dated 15.05.2011, registered at Police Station ,Gagret, under Sections 376/511 IPC. 2. It has been stated that petitioner has been taken into custody in the above case on 15.05.2011 on the report lodged by Pawan Dass. It has been alleged that on 15.05.2011 the complainant , his wife and two children had gone for labour work and his two daughters were in the house. The complainant was told in the evening that the petitioner had done wrongful act with the daughter of the complainant. 3. The petitioner is in jail for the last about six months. The challan has been submitted in the Court and the case is fixed for evidence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to rivalry as the families of the petitioner and complainant are neighbours. In the past,there had been hot exchanges on small matters between the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 families and for this reason the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The medical and F.S.L. Reports , prima facie, negate the allegations of the complainant. 4. The petitioner is innocent. He is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. It has been stated that petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. 5. The bail application has been opposed by filing status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of the complainant. The complainant has stated that he returned in the evening on 15.05.2011. At about 6.30 p.m., he found that several persons had gathered there. He was told by one Bonku that petitioner had done wrongful act with his daughter which was corroborated by his sister-in-law Neero Devi and prosecutrix. It has been stated that prosecutrix cried, petitioner was given beatings by some persons. On this , the case was registered. 6. It has been stated in the status report that petitioner attempted to commit forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. As per ossification test the age of the prosecutrix comes to 9-14 years and as per Dental Surgeon the age comes to 9-13 years. The petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2011. The case is fixed for evidence in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General. It has been submitted by learned counsel 3 for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, at the most even as per prosecution the case against the petitioner is for commission of offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. The petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2011. The case is fixed for evidence today in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. No purpose will be served for detaining the petitioner for indefinite time as trial will take some time. 8. The petitioner is Nepali, the father of the prosecutrix is from Bihar. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner and father of the prosecutrix are neighbours and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It has also been stated that the relations between two families are not good. Thus, keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner and father of the prosecutrix are neighbours and the stand of the petitioner that the relations of two families are not good, therefore, it will not be proper to release the petitioner on bail,at this stage, in view of serious allegations against the petitioner. The application is dismissed. 9. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 28, 2011. (Krt)