MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The victim made a complaint to the police stating that she was in touch with accused no. 1-Raman Singh. He called her on 16/4/2019 at Cafe 69, Sector-7, Kurukshetra. Thereafter, he called her to various other places and he started proclaiming that he wanted to marry her. The petitioner and Raman came to Kangra on 16/2/2020. They took her to a hotel where accused no. 1 entered into sexual relations with the victim without her consent. The accused no. 2, the present petitioner, prepared the obscene videos and took obscene photographs of the victim. The accused no. 1 started blackmailing the victim by saying that he would make the photographs and videos viral. He started calling the victim to his house. He maintained sexual relations with the victim at Kurukshetra in different hotels and in the house of accused no. 2-present petitioner at Mohali and Manimajra. Accused No.1 also took money from the victim on the threat of making the video and photographs viral. On 2/9/2023, accused no.1 called the victim to the house of accused no.2 (the present petitioner) at Manimajra, where both of the accused maintained sexual relations with her by administering some intoxicant to her. The victim narrated the incident to her parents. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered zero FIR which was subsequently transferred to Police Station Kangra, where the present FIR was lodged.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present petition seeking bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was never involved in the commission of any offence and he has no criminal antecedents. He has no relationship with the victim in any manner. He is the brother-in-law of the main accused Raman Singh. The victim had friendly relations with Raman Singh since 2019. The mother of the main accused discovered that the victim had visited the house of Raman at Manimajra, to which she objected and told the victim that her (victim's) visit was against the moral values of her (mother of the accused no. 1's) family. She asked them to get married. The petitioner was not present in the house of Raman Singh on 2/9/2023 and he was present at Kurukshetra. The parents of the victim threatened the mother of accused no. 2 with dire consequences. The victim concocted a false story implicating the petitioner and the accused no. 1 by making false allegations of rape and preparing her obscene videos and taking her obscene pictures. The victim and her family members threatened the accused no. 1 on 11.102023 and snatched the electronic devices. They gave beatings to accused no. 1 and his mother. Accused no. 1 called the petitioner. The petitioner went to the workshop and contacted the accused No.1 and his mother. A complaint under Ss. 107 and 151 of Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station IT Park, Chandigarh. There was no mention of the sexual assault in this complaint. The accused no. 1 married on 15/16/10/2023. The victim lodged the zero FIR thereafter. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family. The victim is aged 21 years. The prosecution story is false and no case is made out against the petitioner. The FIR was lodged after the lapse of two years. No incriminating material is available with the petitioner. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

(3.) A status report was filed reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the statement of the victim was recorded in the Court of Learned ACJM, Kangra. The victim identified the room in the hotel and on verification of the record; the names of the victim and the accused were found in the register of the hotel. These entries were seized. The police arrested the main accused Raman Singh on 30/10/2023 and seized his laptop. The mobile phones of Raman Singh and the victim were sent to RFSL to retrieve the data contained therein. The call details of Raman Singh, petitioner and the victim have been obtained. The victim was found to be in touch with Raman Singh and the petitioner as per call details. The police searched for the present petitioner but could not apprehend him. The police have yet to recover the mobile phone and the laptop containing the obscene videos and photographs of the victim. The custodial interrogation of the victim is required in the present case. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.