Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No.265 of 2010 & Cr.M.P.(M) No.298 of 2010. Date of Decision: April 27 2010. 1. Cr.M..P.(M) No.265 of 2010. Chander Sain @ Chandra. . ..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P . ……. Respondent. 2. Cr.M..P.(M) No.298 of 2010. Rajinder Kumar @ Raju. ..… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. Bimal Gupta Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): 1. The above titled bail applications are arising out from the same FIR, hence taken up together for its decision. 2. The petitioners have applied for pre-arrest bail in FIR No.22/10 dated 29.3.2010, registered under Sections 376 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2 3. Report filed. 4. Heard. 5. The bail of the petitioners is objected to by the learned Additional Advocate General, on the grounds that they had committed heinous offence and the statement of the prosecutrix is against them. 6. Precisely, the case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was married in Haryana. She had visited her parents on 24.4.2010 at village Nehra, Sub-Tehsil Kamrau, District Sirmaur. After staying for about 3-4 days there, on 28th March, 2010, she alongwith her husband stayed in the house of her friend Tara Devi in village Kafota. During the night, she went outside in the field to defecate. It is alleged that the petitioners, who are residents of village Dugana met her on the dead of night. She could recognize only Rajinder Kumar @ Raju. He allegedly caught hold of her with the assistance of Chander Sain @ Chandra co- accused and committed rape. It is also alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by one person, to whom she could not recognize, then thought that he could be one of the person accompanying the accused-petitioners. On reaching the house of her friend Tara Devi, she informed her husband, thereafter contacted her maternal uncle. He told them to reach his house. Next day, the FIR was lodged in the aforesaid terms. 3 7. On Ist April, 2010 and on 5th April, 2010 respectively, both the petitioners were granted interim bail and they were directed to join the investigation. The case was ordered to be listed on 9..4.2010, on which date again, the police intended to collect the call details from of the mobile phones of the accused as well as the prosecutrix and also her husband. Now the call details have been placed for perusal. 8. The alleged incident is stated to have been taken place at about 8.30 p.m. It is evident from the call details that at about 8.12 p.m., the prosecutrix had contacted Rajinder Kumar @ Raju, thereafter second call was made at 8.35 p.m., thereafter at 8.55 p.m. The village of the petitioners is stated to be about 2 K.M. away from the place of incident where the prosecutrix is stated to have stayed with her friend. Petitioners could not have expected the prosecutrix to come out at that very dead night outside in the field, unless there the time to meet was already fixed. 9. Prima-facie, it appears that the prosecutrix and petitioner Rajinder Kumar @ Raju were having some intimacy and the place of meeting was fixed. The prosecutrix might have apprehended that their activities were being watched by someone, who was stated to be someone standing nearby. Therefore, petitioners have a case for pre-arrest bail. As such, their request of pre-arrest bail is allowed and it is ordered that the interim bail granted 4 on Ist April and 5th April, 2010 respectively, to the petitioners, are hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 10. Any observations made in this order, are strictly for deciding these bail applications and shall have no bearing on merits of the main case. 11. Both the applications stand disposed of. April 27, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.