RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks bail in FIR No. 36 of 2014 registered with Police Station Jawali on 3.3.2014, under sections 376, 384, 389, 452, 509, 504, 506 IPC.

(2.) The prosecutrix case in brief is that she lodged a complaint with the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jawali, which was forwarded to the SHO, Police Station Jawali for investigation. In her complaint, the prosecutrix has stated that her husband is a truck driver while the accused was the conductor with her husband. It was alleged that about one or two years back her husband had sent money to her in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner visited the house of the prosecutrix, which was a little far away from the abadi and had handed over the said amount to her. Since it was late in the night, he sought permission to spend the night at her house, which was given by the prosecutrix since the petitioner was known to her husband. It is alleged that on the next day when the prosecutrix woke up she found her nude with a severe headache. Then the petitioner is alleged to have come up to her and informed that he had spent the night with her and recorded their obscene video in his mobile and in case she informs anybody then he would upload this video on the internet. It is then alleged that on account of the video the petitioner many a times came to the house of the prosecutrix and exploited her sexually against her wish and even extorted Rs.40,000/- and 30 grams gold. The petitioner thereafter is alleged to have made various obscene calls to her and it is when that prosecutrix narrated the incident to her husband upon which the complaint came to be filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the allegations against the petitioner are totally improbable and have not been corroborated by any evidence including medical evidence. On the other hand Sh. V.K. Verma, Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. Advocate General have forcefully argued that allegations against the petitioner are extremely serious, therefore, no leniency can be shown in such matters.