Vijay Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the Petitioner on bail in FIR No. 63 of 2011 registered on 01.03.2011 at Police Station, Indora, under Sections 452, 376, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. Status report has been filed.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that Petitioner is about 26 years of age, married, having a daughter and has been falsely implicated in the case. The Petitioner is the only bread earner of the family, No. recovery is to be made from the Petitioner. The investigation in the case is complete. No. purpose will be served by detaining the Petitioner in custody for indefinite period. In these circumstances, submission has been made for releasing the Petitioner on bail.

The application has been opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the Petitioner has committed rape with a widow living alone. The Petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala on 11.07.2011. There is No. change of circumstance and,therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to bail.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The case has been registered on the basis of report lodged by prosecutrix aged about 57 years. In the report, she has alleged that she had been working as Peon in the Primary Health Centre. On 28.02.2011 during night she was sleeping in her room, at about 11.30 p.m., the Petitioner kicked the door of her room and on hearing kicks, she got up. She peeped through the window and enquired who was knocking the door. The Petitioner abused her and asked her to open the door on the ground that he had some work with her. She refused to open the door. In the meantime, the Petitioner broke open the planks of the door and again abused her and entered the room. He bolted the door from inside, switched off light and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. He threatened her that in case she would raise alarm, he would kill her. She has stated that out of fear, she remained silent.

In the MLC, it has been stated that sexual intercourse on prosecutrix cannot be ruled out. The prosecutrix has stated that Petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with her which has not been ruled out in her medical. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Kangra at Dharamshala has dismissed the earlier bail application of the Petitioner on 11.07.2011. It cannot be said that there is No. material against the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, Petitioner is not entitled to bail, hence, application 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.