Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 202 (HP)

RAJAN KUMAR v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-03-24

SURINDER SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. (Oral):- Heard. 2. The present petitioner has moved the instant petition for his pre-arrest bail apprehending his arrest in case under Section 376 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered against him vide FIR No. 74/2009 in Police Station Haroli, District Una, H.P. 3. The respondent has filed the report. The matter has been considered. 4. Precisely, case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, who has just passed 10+2, had been going to the nearby temple to pay obeisance, where she happened to meet the petitioner and on the first meeting, petitioner told her that he had a liking for her. This happened in the month of March, 2008 and thereafter both of them had been frequently meeting in the temple and the petitioner is alleged to have expressed his desire to marry her. This went on for about two months. It is alleged that thereafter on 25.5.2008, the prosecutrix was taken to ‘Green Palace’ Hotel about 20 k.m. away from the temple, where the petitioner had already booked a room. When she reached there, again the petitioner assured her that he would marry her and established his sexual contact with her. Both of them returned on a Bike from the Hotel. Thereafter both were meeting each other in the temple. It is also alleged that again the petitioner took her to another Hotel named ‘Himalya Hotel’ and repeated the same incident thereafter both returned from that Hotel by Bus to their respective homes. 5. Both were enjoying hide and seek play. The prosecutrix and the petitioner kept on meeting in the lonely places as the time passed by. 6. Suddenly, the prosecutrix realized, by then she had attained the age of majority. When the petitioner tried to establish the sexual contacts with her she refused on the ground that he should propose her to parents for marriage. But, the petitioner is alleged to have threatened her with dire consequences and refused to marry her. Even, according to her he had been administering threats on her mobile phone. Thus she lodged the FIR on 15.3.2009 against the petitioner i.e. after about six months of her alleged rape. 7. The police started the investigation and visited the hotel to get the entries with respect to booking of the room by the petitioner but could not find any. Thus she lodged the FIR on 15.3.2009 against the petitioner i.e. after about six months of her alleged rape. 7. The police started the investigation and visited the hotel to get the entries with respect to booking of the room by the petitioner but could not find any. It is alleged that in the Local Panchayat, petitioner had also admitted having sexually exploited the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 16.3.2009. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner has applied for the anticipatory bail. 8. During the investigation of this case, police obtained the School Leaving Certificate and the birth entries from the Panchayat, which reflects her date of birth as 19th June, 1990 which comes to around 17 years 11 months on the date of alleged incident i.e. one month short of 18 years. 9. The entire story gives an impression that everything was going well on interse the accused and the prosecutrix herself but something happened in between, which gave a cause to her to register the case against the petitioner. Keeping in view, the above facts, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, in my considered opinion, petitioner has a case for bail. 10. Accordingly petition is allowed and interim bail granted to him on 20.3.2009 is hereby confirmed with further conditions that he shall not terrorize the witnesses of the prosecution and shall cooperate with the investigation of the case. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Anyobservation made herein above shall not effect the merits of case.