PARVESH KUMAR @ VIKKEY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner, who is behind the bars since 22.2.2018, has approached this court in the instant proceedings under S. 439 CrPC, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 27/18 dated 22.2.2018 under Ss. 363, 366A and 376 IPC, and Ss. 4 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Bangana, Una, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 20.9.2018, ASI Sant Pal Sharma, has come present with the record. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned.

(3.) Close scrutiny of the record reveals that FIR, detailed herein above, came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant namely Mukhtyaro Devi, who alleged hat her minor daughter i.e. prosecutrix has been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the present bail petitioner. After lodging of aforesaid complaint, police recovered the prosecutrix from one tea shop at place called, 'Dhundhla'. Prosecutrix in her statement given to the police, categorically stated that she, of her own volition, had joined the company of bail petitioner and he has not committed any offence, much less, offence under S. 376 IPC. Status report further reveals that the prosecutrix refused to undergo medical examination. Police also got her statement recoded under S. 164 CrPC before the concerned Magistrate, wherein she reiterated that she, of her own volition, had joined the company of the bail petitioner and at no point of time, he had compelled her to join his company. Though, initially, prosecutrix had refused to under go medical examination but after lodging of FIR, detailed herein above, she was got medically examined, report whereof indicates that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Further, the prosecutrix in her statement given before Magistrate under S. 164 CrPC, categorically stated that bail petitioner has not committed anything wrong with her and she, of her own volition, had joined his company. Challan in the case stands filed in the competent Court of law and as per record made available to this court, all the material prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.