SHIV LAL AND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these three petitions for grant of anticipatory bail arise out of the same First Information Report and are based on the same grounds, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The accused/petitioners (hereafter referred to as 'accused') apprehend their arrest in a case FIR. No. 96/2000 dated March 14, 2000 under Sections 147/149/366/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered on the basis of a statement under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code made by Sumna. The accused claim that the case registered against them is false and that they are alleged to have abducted one Sumna aged more than 18 years and that no recovery is to be made from them.

(3.) The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is that on March 14, 2000 when the prosecutrix Sumna, along with her cousin Sunita, was returning home after taking exams. in Science paper from Government Senior Secondary School Hatgrarh at about 12.00 noon on the way they met the accused and their co-accused, the prosecutrix was forcibly put in a van and was removed towards Baggi so that her marriage could be solmenised with accused Shiv Lal. At the time of such removal accused Dharampal was having 'Chhura' and as and when prosecutrix would try to raise hue and cry, accused Chhotu would gag her mouth and Dharampal would threaten her to be killed in case of making any noise. When they reached at Baggi, because of the matter having come to the knowledge of the masses, the prosecutrix was dropped from the vehicle and the accused bolted away. Subsequently, the van in which the prosecutrix was being removed, and was not having any number plate etc. while in movement, was recovered and the wearing apparels etc. meant for bride and few other articles including a Khukhari, question paper and Geometry box of the prosecutrix were found in the van. Hence the case.