1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 684 of 2011. Date of decision: 07.09.2011. Teja Singh. ......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. Inder Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. N.K.Thakur, 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. 259/2011 dated 23.08.2011, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that petitioner got married with Satwant Kaur, daughter of Balwinder Singh, in temple 'Sri Brijraj Swami, Nurpur'. The marriage was solemnized with the consent of the parties and without any coercion. Satwant Kaur travelled to Nurpur for the marriage. The petitioner has annexed copy of affidavit dated 01.08.2011 of Satwant Kaur indicating that she got married with petitioner on 01.08.2011. Satwant Kaur lived with the petitioner at his house and during her stay with petitioner, she was receiving threats from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 her parents. The matter was reported to the police at Jawali, who verified the fact of marriage from Satwant Kaur. 3. Satwant Kaur on 20.08.2011 left the house of the petitioner and took Rs. 25,000/- cash and ornaments. The petitioner believed cousin of Satwant Kaur, who had been maintaining contact with Satwant Kaur on mobile phone was instrumental in disappearance of Satwant Kaur. The matter was reported at Police Station, Jawali. 4. The petitioner has now come to know that a false case has been registered against the petitioner for kidnapping, abduction of Satwant Kaur at Police Station Paonta Sahib. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in the case registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 5. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report wherein it has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis report made by prosecutrix, daughter of Balwinder Singh on 23.08.2011. The prosecutrix has given her date of birth 05.05.1996. She has stated that on 01.08.2011 Hira, Mahindro, Gindro, Guddi took her to Pathankot without the consent of her parents. They also took with them younger brother Sukhwinder of the prosecutrix. They forcibly solemnized her marriage at place Jawali in a Gurudwara with the petitioner. She remained with petitioner for 22-23 days where petitioner used to have forcible sexual intercourse daily with her more than once. He used to beat her on her weeping. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The doctor has opined that prosecutrix had sexual intercourse 3 during recent period. The accused Mahindro and Gindro were arrested on 26.08.2011 and now they are in judicial lock up since 31.08.2011. The prayer has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused police file. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that petitioner in the bail application has wrongly projected the name of prosecutrix as Satwant Kaur aged about 21 years whereas according to Investigating Agency the name of the prosecutrix is not Satwant Kaur. She is known by some other name. The date of birth of the prosecutrix according to the Investigating Agency is 05.05.1996. 7. The petitioner at the time of preparing bail application has wrongly given the name of the prosecutrix Satwant Kaur. The alleged occurrence took place on 28.07.2011/01.08.2011 and on that dates the prosecutrix had completed just 15 years according to the stand of the Investigating Agency. The prosecutrix has specifically stated that she was forcibly got married on 01.08.2011 with petitioner, who had forcible sexual intercourse with her for several days. The medical examination of the prosecutrix has also indicated that prosecutrix was sexually assaulted. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. September 7, 2011. (Krt)