1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 830 of 2011. Date of decision: 15.10.2011. Om Prakash. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur,Advocate & Mr. Inder Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr.J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.105/2011 dated 10.10.2011, registered at Police Station Gohar,District Mandi,under Sections 452, 342, 376 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that prosecutrix got registered the case against the petitioner. The prosecutrix is also from the same area where petitioner resides. The prosecutrix is about 36 years old and is mother of two children. It has been stated that petitioner was telephonically called by the prosecutrix on the plea that she was to take some medicine. On receiving the telephonic call, the petitioner went to the house of the prosecutrix where her husband was also present. However, in order to defame the petitioner due to some rivalry, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 3. The petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the report lodged by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has alleged that in the intervening night 8/9.10.2011, the petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. In the MLC, the doctor has opined that the prosecutrix is habitual of coitus and has been subjected to sexual intercourse. The petitioner in the bail application has not denied his visit to the house of the prosecutrix, but he has stated that he had gone to the house of the prosecutrix on her telephonic call in connection with the ailment and medicine of prosecutrix. The reason given in the application by the petitioner for his visit to the house of the prosecutrix is not only ambiguous, but also not convincing when he has added that due to some rivalry, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. It is not understandable when there is rivalry how just on the telephonic call of the prosecutrix, the petitioner visited the house of the prosecutrix. 5. The prosecutrix has levelled serious allegations against the petitioner. The MLC of the prosecutrix has not ruled out sexual intercourse, no doubt, prosecutrix is a married woman. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation rendered by the petitioner in the bail application for visit to the house of the prosecutrix, the petitioner , at this stage, is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed at this stage. 3 6. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. October 15, 2011. (Krt)