ADWITIYA LAKAHNPAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 12/12 dated 7.2.2012, registered at Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur under Sections 376, 328, 506, 498A, 342, 34 IPC. It has been stated in the application that petitioner has been implicated in a false case and he is apprehending his arrest. The petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

(2.) THE status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the written complaint of Bali Ram father of the victim. It has been stated that victim was got married with Pardeep Kumar about one year ago. The in -laws of the victim had been demanding dowry. Pardeep Kumar husband of the victim is working in Bombay. It has been alleged that Pardeep Kumar performed another marriage at that place. Pardeep and her mother called nephew Aditya The victim, daughter of the complainant was locked in the room and raped. It has been alleged that in -laws of the victim gave her merciless beatings. On 6.2.2012, his daughter told him on telephone that her in -laws threatened to kill her. The motherin - law of the victim, her husband in conspiracy with each other administered poison to the victim. The apprehension was shown that in -laws of the victim would kill her. On this case has been registered.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. There are three accused in the case namely Pardeep Kumar, Veena Devi and petitioner. The other two accused are in custody. The victim has alleged that petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with her in the absence of her husband. The interim bail was granted to the petitioner on 8.2.2012. In the status report it has been stated that petitioner has not produced the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. It has also been alleged that petitioner is not coming out with truth. The victim in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that she was forcibly raped by the petitioner on 3.2.1012 and 4.2.2012. The investigation is still in progress. Therefore, at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to indulgence of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The bail application is accordingly 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.