IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M.P. (M) No. 290 of 2009 Date of decision: 5. 5. 2009 Ved Parkash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . No For the petitioner: Mr. M.L. Brakta, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner has sought the pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in FIR No. 59/2009 dated 16.3.2009 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Rampur, H.P. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a driver of three-wheeler and the prosecutrix (16 years) a School going girl. She had been hiring his three-wheeler to reach School and thus the prosecutrix was acquainted to the petitioner. On 10.3.2009, the prosecutrix was alleged to have been kid-napped from the guardianship of her parents enticing her to compel her marriage. In this process, she was kept in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - captivity by the petitioner for about a month at various places and during this time, finding a place in the newly constructed house of his uncle, she is alleged to have been raped 2/3 times. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner moved the instant application for his pre-arrest bail and his interim bail was allowed on 27.4.2009 by imposing few conditions. It was only thereafter the prosecutrix was produced by him before the Police. She was medically examined and her statement was also recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She imputed the allegations of rape against the appellant even before the Medical Officer as well as before the Police. She further stated that the petitioner had threatened her with dire consequences on various occasions and kept her under his constant control. The report of the Forensic Science has not yet been received. The police has obtained the birth certificate of prosecutrix and she has been shown to be about 16 years and two months old at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, in view of the heinousness of the offence and statement of the prosecutrix, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for his anticipatory bail as such interim order dated 27.4.2009 granting interim bail is cancelled and the petition is hereby dismissed. May 5, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)