Sushil Ahmed vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 97 of 2011 dated 7.7.2011 registered at Police Station, Amb, District Una, under Sections 452, 376, 323 IPC.

It has been stated that allegations against the petitioner are that prosecutrix aged about 17 years alleged that on 6.7.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. she was alone in the house. The petitioner came to her house, she asked the petitioner for what purpose he had come but petitioner caught hold her and took her in a room where she was sexually assaulted. The prosecutrix got herself released from the clutches of the petitioner, she raised alarm, a few persons came there but the petitioner had fled. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents, police came on 7.7.2011 at about 11.35 a.m. The petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2011 and since then he is in custody.

The petitioner applied for the bail but his application has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una on 27.12.2011. The investigation in the case is complete and further custody of the petitioner is not necessary. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence which is clear from the conduct of the prosecutrix, medical examination of the prosecutrix and FSL report. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 7.7.2011 an information was received at Police Station, Amb at about 11.35 a.m. that some misdeed has been committed by a person, on this police came into action. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix has stated that she was studying in +2, her father is a labourer. A boy Podu resides nearby. On 6.7.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. she was all alone in the house. Podu came in her house, she asked him why he had come. In the meantime, he caught hold of her from her right arm and pulled her in a room, bolted the door and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her wish. She opposed the forcible sexual intercourse, Podu gave a fist blow on her left eye. She raised alarm after releasing herself from him. Darshan Singh was standing nearby, Podu ran away.

On hearing her cries, Narender Kumar alias Nitu her cousin came there, she narrated the incident to him and later on to her parents, who disclosed the same to Smt. Tripta Devi, President. Subhash Chand, Ward Member informed the police, on this case was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 7.7.2011. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The challan has been presented in the Court and now case has been fixed in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una for PWs from 6 to 9.2.2012. Prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the police file. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that conduct, medical examination of the prosecutrix and FSL report indicate no forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix and the petitioner were known to each other. The prosecutrix is about 17 years. No injury marks were found on the private parts of the prosecutrix. The further detention of the petitioner is not necessary, who is in custody since 7.7.2011. The prosecutrix has named the petitioner for committing forcible sexual intercourse. In the MLC of the prosecutrix some injuries have been found on her person. The prosecutrix has specifically alleged that petitioner has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her wish on the relevant date and time, hence age of the prosecutrix in the teeth of these allegations is not material at this stage. The case has already been fixed for prosecution evidence.

In the status report, it has been stated that prosecutrix belongs to very poor family and her father has died. The petitioner belongs to rich family. The prosecution has apprehension that in case petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses.

In view of serious nature of the case and the apprehension of the prosecution that in case petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to influence the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.

The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail petition only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.