ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bail petitioner is in judicial custody for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 354-A and 376 C (d) of the IPC recorded in FIR No. 107/2015 of 22.8.2015 registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., H.P., hence, the instant bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed by him for ordering for his release from judicial custody wherein he is extantly lodged.

(2.) The Investigating Officer/Sub Inspector Balbir Singh is present in Court and has filed a detailed status report. Both the prosecutrix(s) are sisters and both are major. The bail applicant is a dental surgeon at PHC Majhin. The prosecutrix Neelam Devi initially entered the clinic of the bail applicant for dental treatment. The bail applicant is alleged to have administered an injection on her arm as also is alleged to have asked her to apply on her breasts an ointment with cotton swab. Subsequently, he took to fondle her breasts, besides asked her to permit him to suck them. Despite her objections, he proceeded to do so. The prosecutrix Neelam left the clinic. However, her sister, Reena Devi who was waiting outside the clinic also proceeded to receive dental treatment from the bail applicant. The prosecutrix Reena Devi, the sister of Neelam Devi, who entered the clinic of the bail applicant after the bail applicant having previously subjected prosecutrix Neelam Devi to penal misdemeanors aforesaid, was also subjected to similar perpetration of penal misdemeanors upon her person by the bail applicant. Apart therefrom, the bail applicant removed her leggings. However, though there is a recital in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., of the bail applicant having sprayed a potion on her private parts as also touched them, yet when the aforesaid fact remains unrecited in her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., necessarily then for non incorporation by the prosecutrix of the aforesaid fact in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the earlier version qua the incident recorded in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., of the bail applicant having sprayed a potion on her private parts as also having touched them, may prima facie loose its sanctity.

(3.) Both the prosecutrix(s) though together visited the clinic of the bail applicant, yet prosecutrix Neelam Devi received treatment prior to its having come to be meted to her younger sister Reena who was waiting outside. Assuming that the bail applicant had perpetrated penal misdemeanors upon prosecutrix Neelam Devi, who had visited the clinic of the bail applicant prior to the visit therein of her younger sister Reena Devi, who was waiting outside, yet immediately on prosecutrix Neelam Devi making a departure from the clinic of the bail applicant, was enjoined to narrate the incident to her younger sister who was waiting outside besides, was also enjoined to dissuade her from entering the clinic of the bail applicant for preventing hers being subjected to penal misdemeanors, as allegedly stood perpetrated on her person by the bail applicant. However, she omitted to do so. Though, she has stated that she vomited yet the place of hers having proceeded to vomit has not been indicated. For omission on the part of the prosecutrix Neelam Devi to indicate the place where she vomited renders the fact as portrayed by her of hers having vomited after her departure from the clinic of the bail applicant, to be prevaricated. Since hers taking to vomit was sequeled by giddiness or drowsiness on account of an injection having been administered to her by the bail applicant, necessarily then yet she omitted to record in her statement, the preeminent fact of the stage when after her departure from the clinic on treatment having been purveyed to her by the bail applicant, she proceeded to vomit. For omission of the aforesaid fact, the apt conclusion is that she was not rendered unconscious after her departure from the clinic of the bail applicant, nor she purportedly took to vomit immediately after hers egressing therefrom, hence, even assumingly if giddiness or drowsiness befell upon her in sequel to an injection having been administered to her by the bail applicant then she well could by gestures or by hers holding back her younger sister concerted to dissuade her from entering the clinic of the bail applicant.