IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 634 of 2011. Date of decision: 29.8.2011. Narinder Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 103 of 2011, registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una on 16.7.2011, under Section 376 IPC. The status report filed by the investigating agency has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that case has been registered on the allegations of prosecutrix, who is married having two children and husband. It has been alleged that on the intervening night of 15/16.7.2011, the petitioner entered the house of the prosecutrix at about 1.00 a.m. The prosecutrix had kept the door unbolted and was waiting for her husband. On entering the room, the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… petitioner overpowered the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her twice against her wish and left the room. 3. The husband of the prosecutrix soon thereafter came. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband and thereafter the case was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 16.7.2011 and since then he is in custody. 4. The petitioner is graduate and serving at Amb. He belongs to respectable family. The prosecution story is not only false but unbelievable. It has been stated that even as per prosecution case, it is not a case of forcible sexual intercourse. 5. The investigation in the case is almost complete. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner, who is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The trial of the case will take some time and detention of the petitioner for indefinite period will not serve any purpose. It has been stated that petitioner earlier filed bail applicable, which has been dismissed on 6.8.2011 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Addl. Advocate General on the basis of status report. I have perused the police file. It has been stated that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood that he may win-over the prosecutrix and overawe the other prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even as per prosecution case, no case of forcible sexual intercourse is made out. He has submitted that it has surfaced during investigation that for the …3… last one year sexual activities were going on. I have perused the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 16.7.2011 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. The report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as yet has not been submitted to the court. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file bail application after the submission of report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C. August 29, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.