PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been instituted by the bail petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for his being released from judicial custody wherein he is extantly lodged, for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 4, 5 (J) Pocso Act recorded in case FIR No. 231/15 of 12.9.2015 registered at Police Station West Shimla. H.P.

(2.) Status report stands filed. The prosecutrix has reared an allegation in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned ACJM-II, Shimla of the bail applicant having in March, 2015 and subsequently in June, 2015 forcibly sexually accessed her. However, the report qua the incident came to be lodged on 12.9.2015 when the prosecutrix had developed a pregnancy of 20-30 weeks. The inculpatory role as fastened upon the bail applicant by the prosecutrix per-se appears to be ingrained with falsity arising from the factum of (a) revelation in the report of FSL concerned of the bail applicant being not the biological father of a baby girl delivered by the prosecutrix on 6.11.2015. The factum of the prosecutrix having delivered a baby girl on 6.11.2015 if counted in reverse to a stage 9 months prior to its delivery by the prosecutrix begets a conclusion of sexual intimacy inter-se the prosecutrix and the biological father of the baby girl who is not the bail applicant having developed in March, 2015. Given the simultaneity of the prosecutrix standing sexually accessed by an unnamed person besides purportedly by the accused in March, 2015 whereas the child delivered by the prosecutrix standing begotten from the lions of an unnamed person prima-facie also negates the guilt of the bail applicant. Further more, the prosecutrix has suppressed and smothered the identity and name of the person with whom she developed sexual intimacy in March, 2015 rather hers having taken to by sheer contrivance concoct a false story of the bail applicant rather having forcibly sexually accessed her sequels an inference of concoctions and premeditations arousable from hers suppressing the identity and name of the biological father of her baby girl, ingraining in its entirety the prosecution version with a vice of falsity. (b) Even when the prosecutrix has taken to suppress the identity and name of the biological father of the baby girl delivered by her in November, 2015 with whom she had developed sexual intimacy in March, 2015 she yet has since March, 2015 besides in June, 2015 omitted to promptly report the matter to the police station concerned. She took to lodge a report qua the occurrence in September, 2015 whereat with an advanced stage of pregnancy besetting her she was hence compelled to report the matter to the police station concerned. The delay remains unexplained. The imprompt lodging of the occurrence by the prosecutrix begets a conclusion of the report qua it lodged by the prosecutrix being premeditated besides concocted.

(3.) Cumulatively the masking by the prosecutrix of the identity of the biological father of the baby girl delivered by her entwined with the unexplained delay in the lodging of a report qua the incident by the prosecutrix to the police station concerned constrains a formidable conclusion of the prosecutrix inventing and engineering a false story against the bail applicant. Prima-facie at this stage, the bail petitioner appears to be innocent. Consequently, this court does not deem it fit and appropriate to prolong his judicial custody any longer as its prolongation would unnecessarily curtail and fetter his liberty.