UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Uttam Singh, who is behind the bars since 21.2.2020, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 28/2020, dated 22.2.2020, under Sections 452, 376, 506, 323 and 34 of IPC, registered at police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Status report filed in terms of order dated 30.6.2020 reveals that victim/prosecutrix, aged 45 years (name withheld to protect her identity), lodged a complaint at police Station, Padhar, District Mandi, H.P., alleging therein that on 19.2.2020, bail petitioner unauthorizedly entered in her room and sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Victim/prosecutrix disclosed to the police that on the date of alleged incident, her daughter-in-law was in the house, but she after having her dinner had gone to sleep in the ground floor. She alleged that at 8 : 10 PM bail petitioner entered her room and sexually assaulted her against her wishes, but in the meanwhile wife of the bail petitioner and one lady namely, Shanta Devi entered into the room and gave her beatings, whereafter her daughter-in-law sleeping in the ground floor came to the spot after having heard cries. She alleged that she was freed from the clutches of wife of the bail petitioner and other lady by her daughter-in-law. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner on 22.2.2020 and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars.

(3.) Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law, contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected. He further contends that though investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but since supplementary challan enclosing therewith final opinion rendered by the Medical Officer as well as Report of FSL is yet to be filed in the competent Court of law, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail at this stage.