IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) 871 of 2009. Date of Decision: 9.10.2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jasbir Singh ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ………..Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner ………Mr N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent ………Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl. 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. 6 of 2009 registered on 1.1.2009 at Police Station Nurpur under Sections 376, 342 & 506 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3 It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was arrested in March 2009 on false accusation of sexual assault committed by him on the prosecutrix. The alleged occurrence is of October 2008. The prosecutrix was married to one Sanjeev Sharma on 29.11.2008 and FIR was registered on 1.1.1009. It has been submitted that ex-facie false story has been concocted by the prosecutrix to implicate the petitioner. It has been submitted that prosecutrix was major even at the time of alleged offence. The story projected by the Investigating Agency is highly improbable and unbelievable. -------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. -2- 4 It has been submitted that the petitioner had lodged FIR No. 356 of 2008 on 29.12.2008 against the maternal Uncle and Aunt of the prosecutrix. The FIR in which the petitioner has been implicated is a counter blast to the case which the petitioner got registered against the maternal Uncle and Aunt of the prosecutrix. 5. The Investigation in the case is complete. The challan has been presented in the Court and on the basis of material on record no case is made out under Section 376 IPC. The trial of the case will take some time, the petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court and therefore, submission has been made to release the petitioner on bail. It has been submitted that petitioner had applied for bail in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Dharamshala but his bail application was rejected, another bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala on 3.9.2009. 6. The bail application has been opposed. The prosecution case is that on 1.1.2009 prosecutrix had submitted written complaint which was addressed to Dy. Superintendent of Police Nurpur. In the application it was alleged that she was residing with her maternal Uncle Yog Raj. In October, 2008 she was working in her Uncle’s house, petitioner who had been visiting her Uncle’s house came there, she was alone and she was raped. He threatened to kill her in case she would disclose the incident to anyone. He was about to leave but her Aunt came there and on seeing her he ran away, she disclosed the incident to her Aunt. It has been alleged that her Aunt also advised her not to disclose the incident to anyone. Later on, in connivance with her Aunt the petitioner raped her 2 or 3 times. It has -3- been alleged her Uncle got her married on 29.11.2008 with Sanjeev Sharma, She developed pain in her abdomen 2/3 days after the marriage, her husband took her to Govt. Hospital Palampur where on examination she was found to be having pregnancy of one month. She disclosed the facts to her husband on his enquiry. On 19.12.2008 her husband left her in her Uncle’s house. On 26.12.2008 her Uncle took her to Hospital Sukhsadan at Pathankot. Doctor gave her 9 injections and later on she aborted the foetus. On this case was registered. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. In the MLC of the prosecutrix her age has been given 18 years. There is copy of affidavit dated 27.3.2009 of prosecutrix in police file in which the age of the prosecutrix has been given 19 years. It is clear from the status report that prosecutrix was allegedly raped Ist time in October, 2008 and before her marriage on 29.11.2008 she was allegedly again raped 2 or 3 times. The prosecutrix allegedly narrated the Ist incident to her Aunt but she has alleged that with the connivance of her Aunt the petitioner raped her 2 or 3 times before her marriage with Sanjeev Sharma. She did not disclose the incident to anyone except her husband that too on his asking. It appears that the prosecutrix was 18 years when she was allegedly raped. The investigation in the case is complete and as per the petitioner even the challan has been presented. The petitioner has submitted that on 29.12.2008 he got FIR No. 365 of 2008 registered against the Uncle and Aunt of the prosecutrix and as a counter blast to that case present FIR was got registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in March 2009. The trial of the case may take some time and in these circumstances no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. -4- 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that petitioner has made out a case for bail. Accordingly the application is allowed, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 6 of 2009 registered on 1.1.2009 at Police Station Nurpur under Sections 376, 342 and 506 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 condition that the petitioner shall not terrorize the prosecution witnesses and tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. The observations made in the order are for disposal of the bail application and may not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of. ‘Dasti copy’ (Kuldip Singh) Judge. October 9, 2009. (KC)