IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.710 of 2008 Decided on: July 24, 2008. Arif …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Anshul Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.49 dated 14.6.2008, registered at Police Station, Kihar, District Chamba, under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The case, in brief, is that statement of Geeta Devi complainant and mother of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on 14.6.2008. The complainant has stated that she has one son and one daughter. The prosecutrix her daughter aged about 8 years is studying in class 2nd. She has further stated that prosecutrix told her that she was feeling pain in her stomach and in private parts. She also noticed that the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… prosecutrix had been wetting the bed and passing urine even while walking. She asked the prosecutrix the cause but she did not disclose anything. On this she asked the prosecutrix to accompany her to the doctor. Thereupon the prosecutrix told the complainant that 7-8 days ago she had gone to the shop of Tita who asked her to come to the roof of the shop. The prosecutrix went up the roof, Tita took her inside the store of the shop. Tita removed the Salwar of the prosecutrix and also removed his pant and thereafter he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix cried in pain, Tita put his hand on her mouth. He ultimately told the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to her parents otherwise he would kill the prosecutrix. The husband of the complainant was not in the house. The complainant narrated the incident to her husband on telephone and he returned after 2-3 days. On 13.6.2008 complainant and her husband took the prosecutrix to hospital when she complained more pain. In these circumstances, the complainant came to police station for lodging the complaint. On the statement of the complainant, case was registered. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. The clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused were sent to FSL Junga for chemical analysis but report of chemical analyst has not yet been received. The accused was arrested on 14.6.2008. The bail application of the accused was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba on 4.7.2008. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is innocent and his innocence has been established by the medical …3… evidence. The prosecutrix had been suffering from urine problem. The investigation in the case is almost complete. The trial of the case will take some time, no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner for indefinite period. The petitioner is ready to furnish bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the statement of the prosecutrix. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the medical of prosecutrix does not suggest that she was raped. I have also perused the MLC of the prosecutrix wherein as per information given occurrence allegedly took place 18-20 days back. In these circumstances, only during trial the doctor will explain the MLC of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her statement has specifically named the petitioner for committing sexual intercourse with her. At this stage, merit of the case cannot be gone into minutely, what is to be seen is the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence as per the allegations of the prosecution. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 24, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni) …4…