IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 710 of 2011 Date of decision : 19.9.2011 ____________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …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 : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 87 of 2011 dated 15.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Dehra, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is 23 years old and the prosecutrix is married and is about 25 years old having two children and husband, who is serving as driver in HRTC. It has been stated that as per prosecution case on 14.6.2011 the prosecutrix was sleeping after giving food to her children and mother-in-law. At about 11.00 p.m. somebody knocked the door. On inquiry, the petitioner told that he was there, the prosecutrix opened the door. The petitioner ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 entered and committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. After some time, there was a call in the name of Aju and the door of the house of the prosecutrix was knocked. On asking the mother of the petitioner responded and petitioner was found sitting in the room of the prosecutrix. The petitioner and her mother went to their house. In the morning, the husband of the prosecutrix came and she narrated the incident to him. On this, case was registered. 3. It has been submitted that the prosecution story of petitioner having forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix is highly improbable. There is no legally admissible evidence of forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than two and half months. The investigation of the case is over and even challan has been submitted. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The petitioner filed bail application which has been wrongly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra on 24.8.20211. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on 15.6.2011 at the instance of prosecutrix aged 25 years. She has two children aged 5 years and 2 years. In the complaint to the police, she has stated that she is living in the house alongwith her children and mother-in-law. The room of her mother-in-law is at a distance of a few meters from her own room. The accused is nephew of the prosecutrix. She has stated that on the 3 fateful night the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he threatened that in case the incident is disclosed to anyone he would finish all of them. The husband of the prosecutrix came at about 6.30 a.m. on 15.6.2011 and then she narrated the incident to him. In the MLC of the prosecutrix possibility of sexual intercourse has not been ruled out. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 23.8.2011. 5. I have heard both sides and perused the police file. The petitioner was arrested on 15.6.2011 and since then he is in custody. On the fateful night, the husband of the prosecutrix was not in the house. The mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has separate room at a distance of a few meters from the room of the prosecutrix. The petitioner is nephew of the prosecutrix and both of them are virtually of the same age group. There is nothing in the status report that the prosecutrix raised hue and cry at the time of alleged incident. Similarly, there is nothing that immediately after the alleged occurrence the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother-in-law. 6. The easy entry of the petitioner in the house and after the alleged incident, the circumstances in which he left the room of the prosecutrix are also relevant at the time of consideration of the bail application. The investigation in the case is complete and challan has already been submitted. The trial of the case will take some time. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served for keeping the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. 4 7. In view of above, the application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 87 of 2011 dated 15.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Dehra, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize/overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 8. The observations made in this order are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. September 19, 2011 ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.