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.300 of 2010. Dated of Decision: April 20, 2010. Dinesh Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The petitioner was arrested in FIR No.253 of 2009, registered on 25.7.2009, under Sections 354, 376, 504 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Nurpur, district Kangra, H.P., on the allegation that he had committed rape on the prosecutrix, wife of the complainant. The prosecutrix is stated to be deaf and dumb. The petitioner was denied the bail by the court of sessions. Report filed. Heard. In short, the prosecution case is that the petitioner is brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who is alleged to have requested the husband of the prosecutrix to take her to Pathankot, to take care of his ailing mother-in-law Kanta Devi. 2 But, in fact she was not ill and the prosecutrix was taken to Pathankot, where the petitioner hired a room in a hotel and committed rape on her. When she returned home, she complained to her husband by making certain signs and gestures. Thereafter, the husband of the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. Police got her medically examined. The petitioner was arrested. The parents of the prosecutrix had died when she was at the age of six years. She was brought up by Kanta Devi aforesaid. Kanta Devi was conversant with the signs and gestures of the prosecutrix. Police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix with the aid of Kanta Devi by interpreting her signs and gestures and told police that the prosecutrix stated that the petitioner had only outraged her modesty and not raped. Police also took the assistance of the husband of the prosecutrix, who is the complainant and his interpretation of the signs were that the prosecutrix was raped. The marriage of the prosecutrix with the complainant was solemnized only one year before the alleged incident, whereas the prosecutrix remained under the care and custody of Kanta Devi till her marriage i.e. for about 15 years, therefore, she can well be conversant with the signs and gestures of the prosecutrix. Sifting of evidence at this stage is not required and may also prejudice the case of any of the parties. In view of the above situation, the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of 3 Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala and this bail shall be subject to the conditions that the petitioner:- (i) shall present himself in the trial court on 29.4.2010 and thereafter regularly as and when required till the completion of trial; (ii) 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; and (iii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Needless to say that in case the petitioner would infract any of the conditions aforesaid, the liberty of bail shall be cancelled Any observation made herein above, shall not affect the merits of this case. An authenticated copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra for necessary action at his end. In case the parties apply for urgent copy, it be supplied to them as per rules. Application stands disposed of. April 20, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge. 4