KAPIL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought pre -arrest bail in FIR No. 41 of 2015 dated 23.6.2015 registered at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 451, 376(2)(G), 323 and 506 IPC.

(2.) RESPONDENT has made available the records of investigation and has also filed the status report.

(3.) NOW , insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his specific case is that on the relevant date he was not in the village and was rather at Paonta Sahib where his wife was undergoing treatment. The fact regarding the wife of the petitioner being under treatment is not even disputed by the investigating agency, but however, it is submitted that the petitioner on the date of the incident was very much in the village and the fact stands duly established from the interception of the mobile signal the location whereof clearly depicts that he was in the village. To counter this allegation, the petitioner has produced on record the records regarding recording of statements alongwith prescription chits as also the details of the medicines purchased by him and was further contended that since there was only one mobile in the family and the same was handed over by him to his father, who had gone back to the village whereas he has chosen to stay at Paonta Sahib. These are highly contentious issues, but then the explanation offered by the petitioner cannot even be brushed aside and is quite plausible.