LAWS(HPH)-2020-5-16

RITESH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On May 27, 2020
RITESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under S.439 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, who is behind the bars since 16.1.2020, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 2, dated 9.1.2020, under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 20.5.2020, respondent-State besides filing the status report has also made available copy of statement of the prosecutrix recorded under S.164 CrPC as also the MLC, perusal whereof reveals that on 9.1.2020, victim-prosecutrix, aged 26 years, (name withheld) lodged a complaint at Women Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that the bail petitioner, whom she knew for quite a considerable time, has repeatedly sexually assaulted her against her wishes. She also alleged that since the year 2017, she has been working with Eastman Auto & Power Ltd. and in the year 2018, she came in contact with the bail petitioner and since then, they were good friends. She alleged that in the year 2019, she also attended the marriage of the bail petitioner, who immediately after his marriage, confided in her that he (bail petitioner) was not happy with his marriage and wanted to solemnise marriage with her(victim-prosecutrix). Victim-prosecutrix further alleged that despite her repeated requests, the bail petitioner, kept on insisting upon her to solemnise marriage with him. Victim-prosecutrix also alleged that in October 2019, bail petitioner came to her room and sexually assaulted her against her wishes on the pretext of marriage. She disclosed to the Police that though immediately after the aforesaid incident, she wanted to report the matter to the Police but on the request of the bail petitioner, she did not lodge report against the bail petitioner. However, in November 2019, bail petitioner again sexually assaulted her against her wishes, whereafter, she became pregnant. Victim-prosecutrix alleged that she, after having acquired knowledge of her pregnancy, contacted the bail petitioner but he not only refused to marry her but advised to terminate the pregnancy. In the aforesaid background, FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner on 9.1.2020 and since 16.1.2020, the bail petitioner is behind the bars.

(3.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to completion of investigation, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency rather the bail petitioner needs to be dealt with severely as such, present petition may be rejected outrightly. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the statements of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Ss. 154 and 164 CrPC, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that the bail petitioner repeatedly sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix against her wishes on the pretext of marriage, as such, he does not deserve any leniency. While referring to the medical evidence adduced on record, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General contends that it stands established on record that the bail petitioner is the biological father of the foetus in the womb of the victim-prosecutrix, as such, bail petitioner has been rightly charged with offence under S.376 IPC.