Kulwant Singh alias Monu vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgement shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) Nos. 13 and 14 of 2012, filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. by Kulwant Singh alias Monu and Bhuvnesh Kumar, respectively for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 76/11 dated 11.10.2011, under sections 376, 506, 341, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, Haripur, Distt. Kangra, H.P.

It has been stated by the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners earlier filed bail applications, which have been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra on 20.12.2011. The investigation in the case is complete and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to bail. The petitioners are poor persons, being masons and their families are depended on them. There is no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail.

The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 13/12 and the bail applications have been opposed. It has been stated that prosecutrix came to the police station alongwith her husband on 11.10.2011 and submitted a written complaint in which it has been stated that prosecutrix age 22 years was marred in the year 2007. She has a son named Anish aged 3 years, who is attending anganwari school at a distance of 500-600 metres. The prosecutrix takes the child to the school and brings him back after school hours at about 1.30 p.m. On 7.10.2011, she had gone to bring her son back from the school, the petitioners caught her on the way, put cloth on her mouth and performed forcible sexual intercourse with her at an isolated place. Later on, they threatened that in case she would disclose the incident to any one, then they would kill her family and kidnap her son. She came under threats, which even affected her daily routine. On the repeated asking of her husband, she narrated the incident to her husband on 10.10.2011. She knew the petitioners as they had been working as masons for construction of house of Rakesh Kumar, who is the son of brother of her father-in-law. On this, case has been registered.

The prosecutrix was got medically examined on 11.10.2011. The petitioners were arrested on 11.10.2011. On completion of investigation, the challan has been submitted on 19.10.2011 and the case was fixed on 19.1.2012 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Dharamshala. The submission has been made for rejection of bail applications.

Heard and perused the police file. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are poor persons, their families are depended upon them. The prosecutrix has named both the petitioners for committing forcible sexual intercourse with her when she had gone to school for bringing her child. She has also stated that she knew the petitioners as both of them had worked as masons in the house of Rakesh Kumar, her close relative. The investigation in the case is complete.

At this stage, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix that petitioners have committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The age of the prosecutrix is not material when she has alleged that petitioners have committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. There are serious allegations against the petitioners, therefore, at this stage the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Accordingly, both the petitions are rejected.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. Both the applications stand disposed of.