IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 582 of 2009 Date of decision: July 21, 2009. Vijay 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. Ashish Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 48 dated 18.3.2009 registered at Police Station, West Shimla, under Sections 376, 354, 377, 511, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that prosecutrix made statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on 18.3.2009 and has stated that she had been studying in Prerna Welfare Association School, Tutu, Shimla in class 8th since last year. She has also named some other girls who are also studying in the same school. The girls live in the lower storey of the hostel and in the adjacent rooms of the hostel teachers and boys of the school reside. Vinod teacher so many times had sexual intercourse with her and he used to say not to disclose this incident to anyone. The other Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… teachers Dinesh, Amarjeet, Vijay had sexual intercourse with other girls, whom she has named in her statement. Those girls have also told her about said teachers. On this, case was registered. 3. During investigation, the girls were got medically examined and recoveries were made and the opinion of the State Forensic Science Laboratory was obtained. On completion of investigation, challan has been submitted in the court. It has been submitted that only the complainant can speak and the other victim girls are deaf and dumb. It has been submitted that offence punishable under Sections 376(2) ( C ) (G), 354, 511, 34 IPC is made out against the accused persons. It has been specifically stated that offence, under Section 376(2) ( C ) (G), 354 IPC is made out against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, the medical evidence does not connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, the case against the petitioner is highly improbable. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was wrongly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 9.7.2009. It has been submitted that petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has ultimately prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General and he has submitted that petitioner has committed heinous offence. Only the complainant can speak and other victims are deaf and dumb girls. The two victim girls have …3… named the petitioner for raping them, one of them has also stated that her nude photographs were taken by the petitioner on his mobile phone. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that challan has been submitted in the court on 19.6.2009. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 9.7.2009. There is no change of circumstances. It has been submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The two inmates have specifically named the petitioner for raping them. One of them has also stated that the petitioner had took her nude photographs on mobile phone. The case against the petitioner is very serious. In the medical evidence as per status report at-least in the case of two girl victims possibility of sexual intercourse has not been ruled out. The petitioner was teacher in the school. The victims are deaf and dumb girls. The challan has been submitted in the court on 19.6.2009. The bail application of petitioner has been rejected by Sessions Judge on 9.7.2009. The present bail application was filed on 16.7.2009. There is no change of circumstances. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, resultantly application is dismissed. July 21, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.