IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 927 of 2011. Date of decision: 23.11.2011. Mahender Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. 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. 25 of 2011 dated 10.5.2011, registered at Police Station, Shilllai, District Sirmour, under section 376 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that case has been registered at the instance of the prosecutrix, under section 376 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 16.5.2011 for commission of alleged offence and since then he is in custody. 3. The ossification test, MLC cast a serious doubt regarding the commission of alleged offence. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is not a previous convict nor has previous criminal history. The petitioner had Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… earlier filed bail application, which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 15.10.2011. 4. The investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the court. The trial of the case will take some time. In these circumstances, further custody of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. It has been prayed that petitioner be released on bail. 5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the report of prosecutrix, who came to the police station alongwith her father and elder sister on 10.5.2011. The occurrence is dated 9.5.2011. The prosecutrix has stated that petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on 9.5.2011. The doctor has given opinion that there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not been performed. 6. The date of birth of the prosecutrix is 19.9.1996 as per Panchayat record. The dental age of the prosecutrix is approximately above 15 years. The petitioner absconded after committing the offence. He was arrested on 16.5.2011. As per FSL, Junga report, human semen was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix as well as on the branches and leaves. The DNA reports of the prosecutrix and the petitioner have not yet been received. The challan has been submitted and the case has been fixed for evidence on 19/22.12.2011. The bail application has been opposed and the prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. …3… 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that age of the prosecutrix comes to above 16 years. There is delay in reporting the matter to the police. The case is not of forcible sexual intercourse as projected by the prosecution. The petitioner is in custody since 16.5.2011. The trial of the case will take some time even though the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence. Now further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. 8. The prosecutrix has stated that her father was not in the house on 9.5.2011. Therefore, she reported the matter on the next day to the police. The doctor has not ruled out sexual intercourse. The date of birth of the petitioner as per Panchayat record is 19.9.1996. The occurrence took place on 9.5.2011. Prima facie, the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence was less than 16 years. The medical age of the prosecutrix will be ascertained during trial. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. 9. In view of above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for releasing him on bail in FIR . 25 of 2011 dated 10.5.2011, registered at Police Station, Shilllai, District Sirmour, under section 376 IPC. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. 10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of. November 23, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.