Vijay Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

V.K. Sharma, J.—Status report filed. Investigation record produced.

Heard. It is alleged that on 20.06.2011 at about 11 p.m. Vijay Kumar @ Vicky (accused), who had come to visit his brother-in-law (jija), whose house is situate near the rented accommodation in which the prosecutrix lives alongwith her mother, sister and brother, telephonically asked her to join his company. However, the prosecutrix declined the offer. Thereafter, the prosecutrix came out of the house and brought the bucket etc. lying there, inside the house. Thereafter, when she was looking outside to ascertain that no article was left outside, the accused came there and caught hold of her from the arm and took her to the roof of the house of his jija. According to the prosecutrix, the accused had gagged her mouth with his hand at that time. Both of them stayed on the roof for about three hours. During this time, the accused is alleged to have caressing the body of the prosecutrix with his hand against her will. Though she resisted the advances made by the accused, but he did not relent. She was also forcibly stopped from raising alarm. At about 3:30 a.m. when her brother and mother came there searching for her, she came down from the stairs.

Initially a case under Sections 352 and 354 IPC was registered against the accused. However, later on, on the suspicion expressed by the mother of the prosecutrix, she was medically examined. The medical expert opined that �there is nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse has not taken place. However, final opinion be given after radiologist report, dental report and FSL report.� Accordingly, offences under Sections 376, 506 and 120-B were also added in the FIR.

The petitioner(accused) is seeking bail on the usual averments that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also undertaken to abide by the conditions of bail, if granted.

The prayer for bail is opposed on behalf of the respondent-State on the grounds that the bail application moved by the accused has already been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. CFSL report from Chandigarh regarding MMS is still awaited. The final report has already been submitted to the Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(accused), learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State and perused the record.

The prosecutrix, whose date of birth is 11.05.1995, was admittedly above the age of consent at the relevant time. The brief facts of the case and the respective contentions on behalf of the parties stand noticed. However, I need not to go into an elaborate discussion of the same so as to obviate any prejudice being caused to either case on behalf of the parties. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it shall not be unsafe to admit the petitioner(accused) to bail subject to conditions. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner(accused) is ordered to be released on bail in this case subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions:

(1) that the petitioner shall attend the learned trial court regularly;

(2) shall not either tamper with the prosecution evidence or directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(3) shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour during trial of the case against him; and

(4) shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned trial Court.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Investigation record returned.