IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.159 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Ashwani Kumar ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. 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.213/09 dated 10.06.2009 registered at Police Station, Poanta Sahib, under Sections 376, 506 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that parents and the family members of the prosecutrix had contacted the petitioner about two years ago when he was running a Clinic at Ronhat. The father of the prosecutrix approached the petitioner for marriage with someone, the petitioner suggested the name of one Raja Jethli at Jagadhari and thereafter marriage of prosecutrix was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… solemnized with that person. Thereafter relations between prosecutrix and Raja Jethli became bitter and for that reasons the relations between Raja Jethli and father of the prosecutrix were also strained. The father of the prosecutrix threatened the petitioner to solve the matter or he would involve the petitioner in some false case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application in the Court below which was rejected on 1.2.2010. The petitioner had also filed anticipatory bail application being Cr.MP(M) No.564 of 2009 which was rejected by this Court on 15.7.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 3.1.2010 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 5. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. P.M. Negi learned Dy. Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been submitted that the case was registered on 10.6.2009 on the basis of application filed by the prosecutrix under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Poanta Sahib. It has been submitted by learned Dy. Advocate General that during investigation it was found that offence punishable under Section 3(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act,1989 has also been committed, therefore, Section 3(XII) of the said Act has also been added and the investigation is being conducted in the case. The learned Dy. Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the application. …3… 6. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the order dated 1.2.2010 has observed that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 8.6.1994. This observation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not been assailed in this court at the time of consideration of the bail application. In other words at the time of commission of alleged offence the prosecutrix was less then 15 years. Therefore, plea of consent on the part of the prosecutrix is not available to the petitioner at this stage for the purposes of bail. There are serious allegations against the petitioner. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 1.2.2010. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail, resultantly, bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 15, 2010 ( Kuldip Singh ) (sks) Judge.