IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 946 of 2009 Decided on : 17.11.2009. Shashi Pal …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Ms. Nidhi Chawla, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant, 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. 212 of 2009 registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra on 22.8.2009, under Sections 376, 506, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecution case is highly improbable and unbelievable. The story itself is full of doubts and raises grave suspicions about ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 whole of the case. The petitioner is innocent. The prosecutrix herself has given her age 17 years. The facts and circumstances of the case point towards the consent on the part of the prosecutrix. The assurances of marriage on the part of the accused are after thought and concocted story. There is no allegation that prosecutrix consented for sexual intercourse only on the assurance of marriage. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner had filed bail application which was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on 3.10.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. A.K.Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General and has submitted that prosecutrix has leveled specific allegations against the petitioner regarding rape. The petitioner had been committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. It has been submitted that bail application of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra vide order dated 3.10.2009. The petitioner is not entitled to bail. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As per the status report the prosecutrix reported the matter to the Police Station along with her mother Sudha Rani and father Asha Nand. The prosecutrix has given her age 17 years. She has stated that for the last 5 – 6 months, the petitioner on the assurances of marriage with her had been indulging in sexual 3 intercourse with her. The family of the petitioner was also aware of their illicit relations. The prosecutrix brought this to the notice of the family of the petitioner. The family of the petitioner was ready for the marriage of the prosecutrix and the petitioner. The prosecutrix has alleged that on the relevant date when she reached near the house of the petitioner at 2 O’Clock, aunt of petitioner called her for helping her for washing utensils. The petitioner was in the house, aunt left the house and petitioner raped her. She told the petitioner that she was going to inform her mother and father and came out of the room. On this, Toshi mother of petitioner and aunt of petitioner gave her beatings with kick and fist blows. The petitioner also threatened her that in case the prosecutrix would disclose the fact to anybody, then he would kill her. She was carrying pregnancy of three months. Shashi got foetus aborted from doctor Vinay Sharma, Misson Road, Pathankot. On this, case was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 23.8.2009 and since 26.8.2009 the petitioner is in judicial custody. In the status report, it has been submitted that report from FSL, Junga is awaited. 5. As per prosecutrix she had relations with the petitioner for the last about 5 – 6 months. The prosecutrix has also stated that on 22.6.2009 the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix has given her age 17 years on the date of reporting the matter to the police. I have gone through the record. I am not commenting more regarding the prosecution case and the limited defence projected at the time of hearing of the bail application so that the observations may not prejudice the case of either side. It is not the 4 case of the investigating agency that some more recoveries are to be made from the petitioner who is in judicial custody. The trial of the case is likely to take some time, in view of facts and circumstances of the case, no purpose will be served to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. 6. In these circumstances, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 212 of 2009 dated 22.8.2009 registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra under Sections 376, 506, 34 IPC. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. November 17, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (GR) Judge.