Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 976 (HP)

SUNIL KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-11-05

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 176 of 2009 dated 19.6.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 176 of 2009 dated 19.6.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur. The investigation in the case is over and nothing incriminating is required to be recovered from the petitioner. The investigating agency does not require the personal custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in case he is released on bail. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala on 25.8.2009. 3. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Kumar had committed serious offence under Section 376(2) (g), 354 IPC. The prosecutrix in the case is a foreign national. The petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Kumar were arrested on 19.6.2009. The challan has been submitted in the court on 17.7.2009. It has been alleged that there is apprehension that petitioner will influence the prosecution witnesses if he is released on bail. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the FIR. The prosecutrix has stated that there were two men in the car, one driver and one passenger. They stopped the car at the liquor store on the road. The driver thereafter turned the vehicle towards the café and stopped the vehicle just after the café. He started touching her legs and inner thighs. The passenger touched her breasts. She objected. Thereafter driver continued to drive along the road. The passenger started pulling her trousers down. He was touching her private area. The vehicle was moved further. Driver then removed her trousers completely and pulled her top up. He then raped her half way. 5. It has been found during investigation that petitioner and one Rakesh Kumar were the persons who are involved in the commission of offence. The passenger started pulling her trousers down. He was touching her private area. The vehicle was moved further. Driver then removed her trousers completely and pulled her top up. He then raped her half way. 5. It has been found during investigation that petitioner and one Rakesh Kumar were the persons who are involved in the commission of offence. The age of the prosecutrix is irrelevant in view of the fact that in the FIR she has clearly stated that she opposed the advances made by the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner had pulled down the trousers of prosecutrix and even touched her private parts. The prosecutrix was raped in the presence of petitioner who was very much in the vehicle. Therefore, the connivance of petitioner for raping the prosecutrix is very much there. In the present case the prosecutrix is foreign national. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in case the petitioner is released on bail it will give wrong signal that foreign women are not safe. In these circumstances, it is not in public interest to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 6. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.