IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 304 of 2009 Date of decision: May 12, 2009. Harjeet Singh alias Raja …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. 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 case FIR No. 423 dated 18.11.2008, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, under Sections 354, 363, 366, 376(2), 506 IPC etc. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. On 18.11.2008, statement of prosecutrix “X” was recorded, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that she was a student of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Paonta and studying in 8th- B class, girl “Y” of Subhkhera was also studying in her school. In October 2007, Girl “Y” met her and they developed friendship. On 1st March, 2008, after Hindi paper, “Y” met her and both of them came out of the school. In the meantime, vehicle No. DL-2C-2465 came Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and Manjit alias Shunti asked “Y” to sit in the vehicle. The girls “X” and “Y” thought that he would drop them at their residences, therefore, “X” also sat in the vehicle. On seeing that the vehicle was taken towards Kulhal, “X” objected, “Y” intervened and said that he (Shunti) would drop them at their residences and they would come back after having a short round. On Dehradun road, Shunti took both of them in a hotel room and Shunti forcibly asked them to undress. He prepared their film on mobile. He also tried to rape “X”, she objected and cried and on this, he left her, but he molested “Y”. Next day after the paper was over, Shunti again came outside the school and asked “Y” to accompany him. “Y” asked “X” to accompany her but “X” refused. “Y” reminded “X” that she (X) had no option as Shunti had prepared their nude film. In these circumstances, out of fear of humiliation “X” accompanied both of them. Shunti took both of them in the same hotel and forcibly undressed “X” and “Y” and again prepared their film on mobile. He tried to rape “X” to which she objected. On 3.3.2008, Shunti again came in a vehicle and asked “X” and “Y” to accompany him to which both of them objected. Shunti told that he would show their film at their homes. In view of apprehension of humiliation, both “X” and “Y” accompanied him in a vehicle, he took them to a hotel and molested both of them in the hotel room. In September 2008, Shunti on phone asked “X” to meet but she put the receiver down. On the same day at about 4.00 p.m., “X” was going to school for hockey practice, Shunti met her and asked her to sit in the vehicle otherwise he would show the film at her home. “X” quietly sat in the vehicle in view of threat that in case “X” would not …3… accompany him then Shunti would show her film at her home. Shunti took her in a house in Gurdwara building by-pass road where against the wish of “X”, he (Shunti) committed rape on “X”. Shunti again threatened that he would show her nude film to everyone and in this way blackmailed “X” and took her to Sataun and Shamsherpur and continued to rape her. “X” in order to avoid humiliation and to save her reputation as well as her parents reputation did not disclose this fact to anyone. On 14.11.2008, she came to know that the nude film prepared by Shunti has come to the notice of school. Shunti on that date and even thereafter threatened “X” that in case she would disclose the facts to anyone, he would kill her. Manjit alias Shunti prepared nude film of “X” and “Y” and blackmailed both of them and committed rape on them against their wishes. On this FIR was registered. During investigation, it was found that date of birth of “X” is 17.5.1992 and that of “Y” is 28.9.1994. “Y” made supplementary statement on 22.11.2008 and has stated that on 21.2.2008 Manjit took “X” and “Y” in the house of Raja petitioner where first of all Manjit committed sexual intercourse with her, thereafter Raju younger brother of Manjit committed sexual intercourse with her. Raja molested her and pressed her breasts. On the same day, “X” also made supplementary statement supporting the supplementary statement of “Y” dated 22.11.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner for having sexual intercourse with “X” or “Y”, at the most allegations are of molestation of “X” and “Y” or outraging their modesty. It has been submitted that …4… bail application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was rejected by this court on 30.1.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 2.2.2009, his bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nahan on 20.3.2009. Cr.MP(M) No. 274 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 1.5.2009. The challan has been presented in the court. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. 4. It has come during investigation that two girls in their supplementary statements have named the petitioner. During investigation, it has also come that part of the offence was committed in the house of petitioner in the presence of petitioner, who also molested and outraged the modesty of two girls. In these circumstances, at this stage it can safely be inferred that offence was committed in connivance with the petitioner. As per the prosecutrix, it is not an isolated act but accused took the benefit of tender ages of the girls and prepared their nude films on the mobile and thereafter the two girls were blackmailed. The challan has been submitted in the court. In view of gravity of offence, it is not in public interest to release the petitioner on bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 20.3.2009 after filing of the challan. There is no change of circumstance after 20.3.2009. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. …5… 5. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. May 12, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.