IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 531 of 2009. Date of decision: June 30, 2009. Kalag Ram …..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. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). The petitioner has filed this application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing him on bail in FIR No. 178 dated 19.6.2009 registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC. The status report has been filed. Heard and perused the record. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 19.6.2009 statement No. 5262 dated 19.6.2009 from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarkaghat of prosecutrix through S.D.P.O., Sarkaghat was received in the Police Station. It was stated in the statement that on 3.6.2009 the prosecutrix had come to Gurukul Academy for submitting her assignments. She was asked by Principal Baldev that her form would be filled in at Shimla. The prosecutrix was boarded in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… the bus at about 11.00 a.m. by Principal and she reached Shimla in the evening at 5 p.m. A person aged about 40 years told her that he had been sent by Principal Baldev. He took her in a maruti car in which besides that person one driver and one more person were sitting. All of them reached village Salahan during night at about 2.30 a.m. The said person took her to his house where his wife, father and mother were also there. The father of that person asked him about the prosecutrix, the said person said that she was his new wife. He got prepared some papers of marriage. The aforesaid Kalgu Ram used to treat the prosecutrix as his wife and he continued to have forcible sexual intercourse with her. She contacted her father on 7.6.2009 and narrated him the entire story. She also told him that Kalgu Ram had performed forcible marriage with her. Kalgu Ram had threatened her that he would kill her. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered at Police Station, Sarkaghat. It has also been stated that during investigation, the prosecutrix was got medically examined at Zonal Hospital, Mandi and her MLC was obtained. The mobile No. 98175-56679 of Kalgu Ram was taken into possession so also the mobile No. 98051-88361 of Baldev Singh alongwith their call details. It was found that in between the date of disappearance and recovery of prosecutrix, Kalgu Ram and Baldev Singh were in contact with each other. Baldev Singh was arrested on 19.6.2009 and as yet he has not been released on bail. The prosecutrix had taken admission in plus two in Gurukul Academy, Sarkaghat in the year 2007. Baldev Singh was having telephone number of the residence of the prosecutrix. The petitioner used to contact the …3… prosecutrix on her residential telephone. The parents of prosecutrix obtained search warrant under Section 97 Cr.P.C. from the court of S.D.M., Sarkaghat and on that basis the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of petitioner on 19.6.2009. The prosecutrix was produced in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarkaghat on 19.6.2009 where she made her aforesaid statement. The petitioner has gone underground, he was searched at his residence, village etc. It has been submitted that custodial interrogation is necessary of the petitioner in order to find out the truth. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age. The petitioner and prosecutrix got married on 5.6.2009 at Rohru and since then they lived together. The marriage was solemnized with free consent of the prosecutrix. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has committed no office much-less offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506, 120-B IPC. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. 4. The bail petition has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that petitioner has committed serious offence, he has gone underground and is not cooperating in the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in order to find out real truth and who were the other two persons who took the prosecutrix to the village of petitioner on 3.6.2009. He has submitted that on the basis of statement of the …4… prosecutrix recorded in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, the case was registered. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully contended that prosecutrix of her own had joined the company of petitioner on 3.6.2009 and she voluntarily performed marriage with him on 5.6.2009 at Rohru and thereafter they lived like husband and wife. The parents of the prosecutrix without disclosing true facts had obtained search warrant of prosecutrix under Section 97 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of that search warrant, the prosecutrix was taken away from the house of the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that prosecutrix was above 18 years of age on 3.6.2009 and therefore, petitioner has committed no offence. 6. I have gone through the statement of prosecutrix, which was made by her before S.D.M., Sarkaghat and also the FIR which has been recorded on the basis of statement made by her before S.D.M., Sarkaghat. The prosecutrix in her statement before the S.D.M. has stated that Kalgu Ram had performed forcible marriage with her and he had been performing sexual intercourse with her. As per the prosecution, the petitioner has gone underground and he is not cooperating in the investigation. I am not purposely making more observations regarding the prosecution case so that it may not prejudice the case of either side. The allegations of forcible marriage and forcible sexual intercourse have been made by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. In order to find out real truth, thorough …5… investigation in the case is necessary. The petitioner at this stage is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. June 30, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.