IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 635 and 636 of 2011. Date of decision: 30.8.2011. 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 635 of 2011. Babu Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 636 of 2011. Sunil Kumar alias Sonu ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This judgement shall dispose of Cr.M.P. (M) Nos. 635 and 636 of 2011 filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, which have arisen out of FIR No. 31/2011 dated 18.3.2011 registered at Police Station, Baijnath, under Sections 376, 109 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 635 of 2011 and the same has been perused. 2. In Cr.MP(M) No. 635 of 2011, it has been stated that according to prosecution, the prosecutrix on 14.3.2011 was coming Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… back from the matrimonial house of her daughter alongwith her grand- son. She got down from the bus at Beed road where Babu Ram and Sunil Kumar met her and asked her to accompany them in the vehicle hired by them, upon which the prosecutrix went alongwith them in the vehicle. Babu Ram and Sunil Kumar forced her to take liquor, but she refused. They threatened her that they would throw her minor grand- son out of the vehicle, therefore, prosecutrix out of fear consumed liquor and fell unconscious. 3. Babu Ram and Sunil Kumar alighted from the vehicle at Chogan Colony and dragged her in the tea plantation, where they outraged her modesty. Sunil Kumar inflicted injuries on her head, arms and left leg, she was beaten with stones and her shirt was torn and he committed sexual intercourse with her. Babu Ram took her grand-son and helped Sunil Kumar to commit rape on her. The prosecutrix somehow freed from their clutches and ran away, but she was caught again, beaten due to which she became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found Sunil Kumar dropping her from the vehicle in her house. On 15.3.2011, the prosecutrix went to the police station to lodge the complaint, but due to fear and mental trauma, she could not narrate the incident of rape to the police. On 18.3.2011, she went to the police station alongwith Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and lodged the complaint. Thereupon both the petitioners Babu Ram and Sunil Kumar were arrested on 19.3.2011. 4. The investigation in the case is complete, in fact report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the court and charge has been framed. The case was fixed on 29.8.2011 for prosecution …3… evidence before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (1) Dharamshala and is also fixed for evidence in that court today. It has been stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in custody since 19.3.2011 and no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioners for indefinite period. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 5. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that petitioners have committed a serious offence. In the MLC of the prosecutrix, the possibility of rape has not been ruled out. The blood was detected on vaginal slide and salwar of the prosecutrix. Some other injuries were also found on the person of prosecutrix. It has been submitted that learned Sessions Judge, Kangra on 30.6.2011 has rejected the bail applications of the petitioners. There is no change of circumstance. The charge has been framed against both the petitioners and very shortly the trial is going to be concluded. 6. I have considered the contentions of both the sides and have also gone through the police file. In the statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix, a copy of which has been placed on the file, the prosecutrix has stated that Babu Ram kept on standing and has not committed sexual intercourse with her, but he helped his co-accused Sunil Kumar. The charge has been framed against the petitioners and the prosecution evidence is in progress. I am not purposely commenting about the merits of the case in view of progress of the trial. However, the allegations against …4… Babu Ram leveled by the prosecutrix are distinguishable from the allegations leveled against accused Sunil Kumar. 7. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner Babu Ram has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, Cr.MP(M) No. 635 of 2011 is allowed and petitioner Babu Ram is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 31/11 dated 18.3.2011 registered at Police Station, Baijnath, Distt Kangra, under Sections 376, 109 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court with the conditions that he shall not terrorise or overawe the prosecution witnesses and shall appear in the trial court during trial unless his presence is otherwise exempted by the trial court. The bail application being Cr.MP(M) No. 636 of 2011 of petitioner Sunil Kumar is dismissed. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case Copy dasti. August 30, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.