ARIF IQBAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his release in case FIR No. 525 of 2017, dated 25.12.2017, under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC and, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail.

(3.) Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.12.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that the petitioner used to stalk her. The prosecutrix told the petitioner that she is already married, but the petitioner did not mend his ways. The petitioner got the phone number of the prosecutrix and they used to talk her. In the month of April, 2017, the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to come to Ranbaxy Chowk, where the petitioner gave a chocolate to the prosecutrix and after eating the same she became unconscious. When the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she found herself naked in a room of Arsh Paying Guest and the petitioner was also there. The prosecutrix told him that she would report the matter to the police, but the petitioner showed her obscene video and he threatened to get the video viral. Thereafter, on the pretext of that video the petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix many times. When the prosecutrix avoided the telephonic calls of the petitioner, he came to her muhalla. The petitioner on the pretext of that video blackmailed her and also gave beatings to her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. The petitioner was arrested and two mobile phones of the petitioner were taken into possession. The petitioner was medically examined and the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Mobile phone of the petitioner was sent to SFSL, Junga, for forensic analysis and report thereof is awaited. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case he is released on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.