IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No.1126 of 2009. Decided on: 24th February, 2010. _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar ….Petitioner Versus State of HP. ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH, J (Oral) The petitioner is an accused of an offence of rape, in FIR No.209 of 2009 registered on 31st October, 2009, in Police Station, West Shimla. His bail was rejected by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, as such he has sought his release on bail by moving this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the prosecution story, on 30th October, 2009, the prosecurtix was taking rest in the cowshed on a make shift bed as usual after providing fodder to the cattle. The door was closed, but was not bolted from inside. Some person opened the door, entered inside and committed rape on her. When she tried to open the door, she was dragged again by the petitioner and committed the rape second time. Thereafter, he fled away from the place. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - The matter was reported to the police on the next day. She did not either name the accused nor stated that he was ever seen before, but in her subsequent statement she stated that the assailant was wearing blue sweater and white pant at the time of committing the alleged crime. Later her brother-in-law, namely Ramesh told her that he had seen such a person with the features described by her moving around in the area 2/3 times, for purchasing “Anardana”. To this effect the complainant’s supplementary statement was recorded on 1st November, 2009. It was in that statement she stated that she had seen the petitioner twice earlier to the occurrence. On 2nd November, 2009 the petitioner was called to the Police Station. He was allegedly identified by the prosecutrix. On 4th November, 2009 the police recovered his wearing apparels, but those were different from the description given by the prosecutrix. The Challan has been presented in the Court for the trial of the accused and it is fixed for 5th March, 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla. Against the above background, prima facie I feel that it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail by imposing suitable conditions so that he is available for his trial. It is thus ordered that the petitioner be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall be present before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla on 5th March, - 3 - 2010 on which date the case is fixed and thereafter as and when called upon to attend the Court; (b) shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. In case the petitioner shall make breach of any of the conditions, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled. The observations made hereinabove are strictly for the disposal of this bail petition and the same shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, for information and necessary action at his end and in case the parties apply for urgent supply of the copies, the same be supplied to them immediately, as per rules. The petition stands disposed of. February 24, 2010. (Surinder Singh),J. (rc)