1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No. 825 of 2011. Date of decision: 01.11.2011. Narinder Chauhan. ......Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate Genderal. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.28/2011 dated 29.05.2011, registered at Police Station Nerva, under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3(i)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The status report filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated that petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2011 and since then he is in custody. The allegations against the petitioner are false. There is no authentic evidence available with the police for connecting the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. The allegations against the petitioner are baseless and have been levelled just to lower down his image. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which has 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge on 28.09.2011 on grounds not available in law. In the cases earlier registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in one case and the other is pending. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 4. The bail application has been opposed. It has been stated in the status report that the case has been registered on the complaint of prosecutrix on 01.06.2011. The prosecutrix resides with her husband in the kitchen,whereas, her son and daughter-in-law reside in the upper storey of the house. On 29.05.2011, she was in the kitchen with her husband, at about 11.00 p.m., petitioner under the influence of liquor forcibly entered in her kitchen and said that he would sleep there, he demanded water. He of his own drank the water and tried to sleep on the bed, he was asked to go out. After some time, he stood up and insisted that somebody should accompany him up to certain distance. 5. It has been stated that prosecutrix came out of the kitchen to call her son. In the meantime, petitioner came from behind and bodily lifted her and carried her in the dark and raped her against her wish. She cried for help, her family members came out to help her, but petitioner ran away from the spot and threatened to kill her as well as her husband. She reported the matter on 01.06.2011. She has stated that she is 'dalit'. On account of her poverty, distance and threats of petitioner, she could not report earlier. It has been stated that caste certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained and it has been found that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category,whereas, the petitioner belongs to high caste. The petitioner was arrested on 16.06.2011. The petitioner is habitual 3 offender, two cases are already pending against him. The petitioner and prosecutrix are from the same village and in case petitioner is released on bail, he will influence the witnesses. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 28.09.2011 and the present bail application has been filed on 11.10.2011 without any substantial change of circumstance. The prosecutrix has stated that on account of her poverty, distance and threats of petitioner, she could not report the matter to the police earlier, but still she took courage to lodge the report on 01.06.2011 regarding the incident dated 29.05.2011. 7. The petitioner and prosecutrix are from the same village. The possibility cannot be ruled out that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he will overawe or terrorize the petitioner and other prosecution witnesses. The petitioner is a poor woman and is Scheduled Caste. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 8. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge. November 1, 2011. (Krt)