Praveen Kumar vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.303/2011, dated 19.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Baddi, under Sections 376G, 342, 506 IPC. It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case by the prosecutrix. The petitioner has been arrested on 20.12.2011. The petitioner is innocent. The investigation in the case is complete and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody any further. The challan has been submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh, on 14.03.2012. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 19.12.2011 Sanjeev Kumar on telephone informed the police that a girl had come in the Village and complaining that she was wronged. The police reached the spot. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. She has stated that on 18.12.2011 in the evening she had gone to Kishanpura bazaar for purchasing ration items. At about 6.30 p.m. near Kishanpura school, two boys Praveen Kumar and Sumit Kumar whom she knew came on bike and stopped near her. Sumit told that his sister-in-law was not well. He asked the prosecutrix to accompany him. The prosecutrix believed and went with them on bike. Both of them took her in a room in Phase-II, House No. 298, where three boys were already present in the room.

On her entering the room, Praveen Kumar bolted the room, switched off the light, laid her on the bed where three beds were already placed on the floor and Praveen committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix cried for help, Sumit increased the volume of the T.V. and gagged her mouth with his hands and threatened her that she would be killed. Narender who was also present in the room with an intention to rape her teased her. The two other accused Ashish and Manoj, who were also present in the room watched everything. All the five accused kept her in the room with conspiracy with each other till 4 O''clock. Thereafter, Praveen dropped her at Kishanpura and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix went to her friend Nirmala and narrated her the incident, Sanju was also present there, who informed the police on telephone. On this the case has been registered.

The accused were arrested on 19.11.2011. The accused were got medically examined. The motorcycle was taken into possession along with documents. Ashish Kumar has been released o bail on 20.01.2012, Narender and Manoj Kumar have been released on bail on 05.04.2012. Praveen Kumar and Sumit are in judicial custody. The report from F.S.L., Junga has been received and rape on the victim has been confirmed. D.N.A. Profiling result of Praveen is awaited. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the prosecution story itself it cannot be said that petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He has submitted that as per allegations prosecutrix accompanied petitioner and Sumit and went to the room. She remained there in the room till 4 O''clock. Thereafter, Praveen dropped her back on the bike at Kishanpura. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioner is innocent till he is convicted.

The prosecutrix has specifically named the petitioner for committing rape. She has stated that petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The age of the prosecutrix is not relevant when the allegation of the prosecutrix is that she has been forcibly ravished. The petitioner cannot take benefit from the bail granted to Ashish, Narender and Manoj. The allegations against the petitioner are on different footing. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Hence, the application is dismissed. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.