Adwitiya Lakahnpal vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 12/12 dated 7.2.2012, registered at Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur under Sections 376, 328, 506, 498A, 342, 34 IPC. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been implicated in a false case and he is apprehending his arrest. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the written complaint of Bali Ram father of the victim. It has been stated that victim was got married with Pardeep Kumar about one year ago. The in-laws of the victim had been demanding dowry. Pardeep Kumar husband of the victim is working in Bombay. It has been alleged that Pardeep Kumar performed another marriage at that place. Pardeep and her mother called nephew Aditya The victim, daughter of the complainant was locked in the room and raped. It has been alleged that in-laws of the victim gave her merciless beatings. On 6.2.2012, his daughter told him on telephone that her in-laws threatened to kill her. The motherin- law of the victim, her husband in conspiracy with each other administered poison to the victim. The apprehension was shown that in-laws of the victim would kill her. On this case has been registered.

It has come in the investigation that victim was married on 14.11.2010 with Pardeep Kumar. The husband of the victim after 28 days of the marriage had gone to Bombay to join his duty in HDFC Bank. It has also come in the investigation that mother-in-law of the victim and mother of mother-in-law of victim and victim are living in the house. The victim has stated that petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on 3.2.2012. The victim has also stated that on next day also the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter the husband of the victim also came. It has been stated that even a family panchayat was called. It has been alleged that husband of the victim told that he would divorce the victim. It has been alleged that on 6.2.2012 the mother-in-law of the victim gave phenyl balls to the victim and asked her to swallow those balls. The victim took four phenyl balls and informed her parents on telephone. The mother-in-law and husband of the victim took her to Hamirpur hospital from where she was discharged on 10.2.2012. The husband and mother-in-law were arrested and they are in judicial custody. It has been stated that petitioner absconded after the incident. The Investigating Agency has prayed that keeping in view the seriousness of the case the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

Heard and perused the record. There are three accused in the case namely Pardeep Kumar, Veena Devi and petitioner. The other two accused are in custody. The victim has alleged that petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with her in the absence of her husband. The interim bail was granted to the petitioner on 8.2.2012. In the status report it has been stated that petitioner has not produced the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. It has also been alleged that petitioner is not coming out with truth. The victim in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that she was forcibly raped by the petitioner on 3.2.1012 and 4.2.2012. The investigation is still in progress. Therefore, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.