IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.807 of 2009. Date of decision: 17.9.2009. Pawan 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. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Additional Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.69 of 2009 dated 29.7.2009 registered at Police Station, Bharmour under Sections 450, 377, 307, 325 and 506 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case in brief is that Soma Devi complainant lodged the report at Police Station on 29.7.2009 at 3.30 p.m. The complainant in her complaint has alleged that on 29.7.2009 they were sleeping, at about 1 a.m. their Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes tenant Kamal Kumar by oral call informed them that he had heard some sound of goat in the cattle shed. He suspected that some bear had attacked the animal. On this, the complainant, her husband and tenant Kamal Kumar went to the cattle shed and found that it was closed from out side but window was open. The husband of the complainant and Kamal Kumar kept standing on the door and the complainant after opening the door with the help of mobile torch entered the cattle shed and saw that Pawan Kumar was doing carnal intercourse with the goat. On seeing the complainant, Pawan Kumar left the goat, adjusted his pent and caught hold the complainant by her hair and started beating her with fist blows. He pulled out a bunch of hair from her head. On hearing her cries, her husband entered the cattle shed and saved her from Pawan Kumar. They raised alarm. On hearing their alarm Punni Devi, Jai Singh parents of Pawan Kumar and Vikram Singh reached the spot. The husband of the complainant on telephone informed the ward panch Jaram Singh who reached the spot. Pawan Kumar was taken away by his parents. Pawan Kumar threatened the complainant that today he had performed carnal intercourse with the goat and he would do the same with the complainant and finish the entire family of the complainant. On this, case was registered. 3. The complainant was got medically examined and the doctor found injuries on the person of complainant. The X-rays of the complainant were got conducted at District Hospital, Chamba. The doctor found fracture of right parietal bone and of 9th rib right side. On this, Sections 307, 325 IPC were also added. The goat was also examined by veterinary doctor. 4. On 31.7.2009 petitioner had filed a bail application in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba. On 20.8.2009 Pawan Kumar had again threatened complainant and his family members and to this effect another complaint was lodged by the husband of complainant on 21.8.2009. The bail application of petitioner was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba on 5.9.2009 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is almost complete; no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. The petitioner was granted interim bail by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is the case of the investigating agency that on 27.7.2009 the petitioner was found performing carnal intercourse with the goat and when he was caught in the action by complainant he gave beatings to her and also pulled bunch of hair from her head. According to investigating agency fracture was found in the right parietal bone and 9th rib right side of the complainant. In the status report, the investigating agency has not pointed out on which part of the body of the complainant the petitioner inflicted blows. The petitioner was all alone whereas complainant, her husband and tenant Kamal Kumar were on the spot. According to the prosecution case, the door of the cattle shed was closed but window was open. As per prosecution the beatings were allegedly given by the petitioner to complainant with fist blows and no specific weapon was used for giving beatings to the complainant. There is nothing in the status report that some recoveries are to be made. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. 7. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court on 5.9.2009. In the status report filed in this court, it has been alleged that on 20.8..2009 petitioner had threatened the complainant but it appears this threat was not brought to the notice of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in as much as in the order dated 5.9.2009 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not noticed the alleged threat dated 20.8.2009 given by petitioner to the complainant. 8. The FIR was registered on 29.7.2009 after 3.30 p.m. whereas the alleged occurrence took place at 1 a.m. during the intervening night of 27/28.7.2009. In the status report there is nothing to show that investigating agency requires custody of the petitioner for custodial interrogation. Thus keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. The petitioner in the event of arrest in FIR No.69 of 2009 dated 29.7.2009 registered at Police Station, Bharmour under Sections 450, 377, 307, 325 and 506 IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not leave limits of District Chamba without the permission of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba till the challan is filed in the court. 10. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms ( Kuldip Singh) Judge September 17, 2009 (sks)