Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.673 of 2008. Dated of Decision: July 8, 2008. Surjit Kumar and another. ……Peittioners. Versus State of H.P. ………. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioners were arrested in FIR No.108 of 2008, registered on 22.4.2008, under Sections 452, 376 (g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing the rape on prosecutrix, who was slightly less than 16 years of age. Their request for bail was rejected by the learned Additional sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala vide his orders dated 21.6.2008. In short, prosecution story is that on 18.4.2008, Kaushalya the mother of prosecutrix had gone to a nearby village to attend a marriage and to do some work, leaving behind the prosecutrix and her son Sandeep. During the night around 10 P.M., Sandeep went to her mother leaving behind 2 the prosecutrix, his sister. His mother told him to go back as his sister was alone in the house. Next date, she was engaged to do some work in another marriage in village Danei. On 20.4.2008, at about 6 P.M, the prosecutrix visited her mother and informed that on 18.4.1008, when Sandeep had gone to her, then the petitioners entered in the house and committed the rape upon her. When she raised hue and cry, they threatened her with dire consequences and fled away. On hearing her cries, her neighbour Smt. Reshma came there. Next morning at 10 P.M., her mother sent the prosecutrix to her house and told that they would report the matter to the police. When her mother reached in the house, she did not find the prosecutrix there. Thereafter, Smt. Kaushlaya Devi reported the matter to the police. The police swung into action. The wearing apparels of the prosecutrix, which were lying at her residence were taken into possession. The petitioners were arrested on 22.4.2008. They were medically examined and were found fit to perform the sexual intercourse. The Bilaspur Police had already arrested the prosecutrix with one Anil Kumar under Sections 41(2) and 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from Swarghat. On 24.4.2008, she was brought to Palampur by the police for her interrogation in this case. Her statement was recorded. She was medically examined. Her vaginal smear slides, vaginal 3 swabs and pubic hair were sent for chemical analysis and on its examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was found to have contained the human semen and blood stains in the vaginal swab. Shri J.S. Guleria, learned Law Officer has objected the application for bail, on the ground that the prosecution is a minor and less than 16 years of age and in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would tamper with the prosecution evidence. Contra, Shri Rakesh Jawswal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the prosecutrix was recovered from the company of another boy, that too after about four days of the alleged incident. The mother of the prosecutrix has also given an affidavit to the police that the petitioners had done nothing and their names were mentioned by her in the FIR by mistake. It is also argued that the semen found in the vaginal swab was not connected with any of the petitioners. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case. It appears that the complainant herself has backed out from the contents of the FIR. Her affidavit was taken into possession by the police and there is nothing on record to show that she gave her affidavit on account of the threats by the petitioners or their relatives. Further it is also born that the prosecutrix absconded from her house and remained in the company of some other boy and she was recovered from his possession. The semen found on 4 the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix has not been connected with any of the petitioners. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be denied the liberty of bail. Accordingly, the present bail petition preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners are hereby directed to be released on bail on their furnishing the bail bonds to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each to the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala. This bail shall be subject to the following conditions:- (a) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (b) shall co-operate with the investigating officer to enable him to complete the investigation and to take it to a logical end; and (c) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without the prior permission of this court till further orders. 5 Needless to say the liberty of bail shall be cancelled in case the petitioners shall make the breach of all or any of the conditions aforesaid. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra for necessary action at his end through registered post. July 8, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.