CRMPM/1084/2009 of RAVI ALIAS SURESH KUMAR Vs STATE on 28 December 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 1084 of 2009

Date of decision: December 28, 2009.

Ravi alias Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner.

Vs.

State of H.P. …. Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1]

For the Respondent : Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General.

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. 24 dated 24.7.2009, registered at Police Station, Sangla, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner surrendered at Sangla before the police on 28.7.2009 when he learnt that allegations of rape have been levelled against him and since 28.7.2008 the petitioner is in jail. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is not involved in the commission of alleged offence. The prosecutrix herself was persuading the petitioner to get married her. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

prosecution case itself indicates that prosecutrix at her own accompanied the petitioner to his native place at Mandi. The petitioner had filed bail application before learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahar, which has been rejected on 8.12.2009. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The trial of the case will take some time and no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody for indefinite period. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. The bail application of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned Assistant Advocate General, who submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for committing offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120 B IPC. In fact, there are three accused and out of them two have already been released on bail, but the petitioner being the main accused is still in custody and he deserves no leniency.

4. The further case of investigating agency is that on 24.7.2009, the prosecutrix came to Police Station alongwith her parents and reported the matter. She has stated that on 21.7.2009 she came to school alongwith her friend Vidya Devi, during recess she went alongwith her friend Vidya Devi at Sangla bazaar. On the asking of Vidya Devi she reached Gangarang Shiv Temple at about 2.00 p.m. where Vidya Devi and her god brother Ravi Kumar were already there. Ravi Kumar is running a barber shop at Sangla bazaar. Vidya Devi told Ravi Kumar to take the prosecutrix in his quarter and Vidya Devi returned to school. Ravi Kumar took the prosecutrix to his quarter at Thapasaring and asked her to change her school dress. She changed the school dress, when it was quite dark one white coloured jeep came there from which driver and Madan barber came out. They asked the prosecutrix and Ravi Kumar to sit in the jeep and they came to Rampur alongwith Madan. They reached Rampur at 2.30 a.m., prosecutrix slept in the jeep till 4.45 a.m. and at 5.00 a.m. Ravi Kumar took her in a bus to Shimla. The jeep driver and Madan returned to Sangla. Ravi Kumar took the prosecutrix from Shimla to Mandi and reached Mandi at 5.00 p.m. The prosecutrix had talk with her elder sister Mamta on telephone and told her that she was at Mandi and got married.

5. Ravi Kumar took the prosecutrix at the residence of his grand parents at Mandi. On 23.7.2009 Ravi Kumar took her from Mandi to her uncle’s house at Pingla where after taking meals Ravi Kumar performed forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix without her consent. The parents of the prosecutrix reached Pingla at about 5.00 p.m. and took her back. She has stated that Ravi Kumar in connivance with Vidya Devi with a promise to marry her kidnapped her, on this the case was registered. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to bail.

6. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The occurrence took place in between 21.7.2009 to 23.7.2009. The date of birth of the prosecutrix as per investigating agency is 20.7.1992. Thus on the date of occurrence, the prosecutrix was 17 years of age. The prosecutrix had accompanied the petitioner from Sangla to village Pingla in District Mandi and even informed her elder sister that she got married. In the MLC of the prosecutrix no struggle marks, bruises or abrasions were found in genital region, hymen absent. The petitioner is in custody since 28.7.2009. The investigation in the case is complete. The learned Assistant Advocate General has submitted that even the challan has been presented in the court. The two other accused have already been released on bail. The apprehension of the investigating agency that petitioner can commit similar type of offence again and influence the prosecution witnesses is vague.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 24 dated 24.7.2009, registered at Police Station, Sangla, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur with the conditions that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without the permission of the trial court till the trial is completed. The prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in case any condition of this order granting bail to the petitioner is violated by him.

8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Copy dasti.

December 28, 2009. (Hem)

( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.