Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MP(M) No.711 of 2009. Dated of Decision: August 28, 2009. Dola Ram. …..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Ms. Rameshwari Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.198/08, registered in Police Station Manali, for the offence under Sections 363, 376 (g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. His bail application was rejected alongwith the bail application of his co-accused, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu. Thereafter, Cr.M.P.(M) No.113/2009 was moved in this court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking bail, but it was not pressed, thus dismissed. Now the present application for seeking bail has been moved under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 2. I have heard Ms. Rameshwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General and have gone through the case file. 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.7.2008, the prosecutrix (a minor) had gone to Raisan (Kullu) to attend the village fair. In the evening, when returning to her house on foot, the petitioner came in a Jeep bearing registration No.HP-66-1600 alongwith his co-accused Rajinder @ Raju. Jeep was stopped near the prosecutrix. Both of them came out and forcibly lifted the prosecutrix and put her in the Jeep. She was threatened with dire consequences and was taken towards Bhunter. On the way, the co-accused Rajinder @ Raju deboarded near Ramshilla to purchase a bottle of beer. In his absence, the prosecutrix was allegedly sexually molested by the petitioner herein. When the co- accused Rajinder returned, the petitioner took her towards Bhunter side and was lodged in a hotel. During the night, the co-accused Rajinder @ Raju also committed sexual intercourse against her will. In the morning, she was left at the Bus Stand Bhunter. Feeling humiliated and sexually abused she did not return to her home because of fear, but boarded the bus and gave a telephonic message to her aunt, named Geeta that she had left towards Baijnath and was not willing to return to 3 her home. Thereafter the other family members of the prosecutrix were informed and she was brought back from Joginder Nagar. 4. The prosecutrix herself lodged the FIR on 2.8.2008 in the Police Station and thereafter, she was got medically examined. Her Salwar was sent for forensic examination. As per report, human semen was detected on the Salwar. On 3rd August, 2008, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused were arrested. They were also medically examined. The challan was presented in the court on 27.10.2008. The petitioner alongwith his co- accused was charge-sheeted and now the case is fixed for the evidence of the prosecution. 5. The age of the prosecutrix has been opined to be of 14 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this case was concocted against the petitioner as the FIR was lodged on 2nd August, 2008, whereas the medical certificate shows that she was medically examined on 2nd February, 2008 and further that where the petitioner is alleged to have committed sexually intercourse with the prosecutrix, it was an open place on the road, which was not possible. 7. It is a fact that the FIR was lodged on 2nd August, 2008, by the prosecutrix against the petitioner and his co-accused. The police had made request for her 4 medical examination on 2nd August, 2008, but it appears that the date on the MLC was wrongly mentioned by the Doctor as 2nd February, 2008, which fact is also established from the number of the police docket sent for the medical examination, the reference of which is also given in the column of the said medical certificate, wherein the date is mentioned as 2nd August, 2008. Therefore, prima-facie it appears to be a mistake committed by the medical Doctor while putting the date on the MLC. Secondly, the prosecutrix had clearly specified the role of the petitioner and has stated about having been sexually abused by him in the vehicle against her wishes at village Ramshilla. Therefore, in these circumstances, prima facie it cannot be said at this stage that the case against petitioner is false. 9. In view of the above stated position, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail, accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 10. However, any observations made hereinabove, shall not affect the merits of this case in any manner. The application stands disposed of. August 28, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.