IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.33 of 2008 Decided on: February 25, 2008. Yashwant Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr K.R.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.87/07 dated 24.9.2007 registered at Police Station, Anni under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix was not taken away by the petitioner at any time. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the parents of the prosecutrix due to enmity. The prosecutrix is not minor. The petitioner was arrested on 23.9.2007. The police has filed the challan in the Court and the petitioner is in judicial custody. The petitioner has good case on merits. The petitioner earlier filed bail applications which have been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar on 5.10.2007 and 14.1.2008. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… 3. The bail application has been opposed by Shri A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General. It has been submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 23.9.2007 Kanta Devi, mother of the girl ‘P’ did not find her daughter at home. She searched the girl who was not traceable and, therefore, on her complaint case was registered under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 25.9.2007 from the house of petitioner and the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In her statement she has stated that on 23.9.2007 petitioner came to her village Rai Bag and promised her that he will solemnize marriage with her. On this prosecutrix joined the company of the petitioner and during night he had sexual intercourse with her. On this Section 376 I.P.C. was also added in the F.I.R. The petitioner was arrested on 25.9.2007. The date of birth of prosecutrix is 20.2.1991. On 23.9.2007 the prosecutrix was more than 16 years. In the reply filed by the respondent / State, there is no averment that the petitioner made any false promise to prosecutrix for marriage. It appears the prosecutrix herself joined the company of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case in F.I.R. No.87/07 dated 24.9.2007 registered at Police Station, Anni under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Rampur Bushehar subject to the condition that he shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. …3… 4. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. February 25, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)