SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Suresh Kumar, apprehending his arrest in case FIR No. 11/18 dated 24.1.2018, registered at Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 366, 342 and 376 IPC, has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition under Section 438 CrPC, seeking therein pre-arrest bail.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 27.2.2018, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest, Shri Prakash Chand, ASI has come present with the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? record. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the investigating agency, perusal whereof suggests that on 24.2.2018, complainant-prosecutrix lodged a complaint against the bail petitioner at Police Station Nerwa, alleging therein that on 26.11.2017, bail petitioner came to her residence and on the pretext of marriage sexually assaulted her in her room. As per complainant, bail petitioner took her to Baddi in his against her wishes. to vehicle, where he again sexually assaulted her After ten days of alleged incident, bail petitioner allegedly left the complainant-prosecutrix alone at Baddi and thereafter he never turned up. On the basis of aforesaid complaint lodged by the complainant-prosecutrix, FIR detailed herein above came to be registered against the bail petitioner. Investigation further reveals that the complainant- prosecutrix was unable to identify the rooms at Baddi and Chandigarh, where she was allegedly raped by the bail petitioner, however, the fact remains that the bail petitioner after having obtained interim bail from this Court, joined the investigation and thereafter took the police to the room at Baddi, where he was allegedly residing with complainant- prosecutrix.

(3.) Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner, while referring to the record/status report strenuously argued before this Court that no case is made out against the bail petitioner because bare perusal of statement having been made by the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC itself suggests that she had joined the company of the bail petitioner of her own volition and at no point of time, she was forced/ compelled to join the company of bail petitioner. While referring to the statement of one Shri Amar Chand Thakur, i.e. owner of the house allegedly taken on rent by bail petitioner at Baddi, Mr. Surinder Saklani contended that it is quite apparent from the statement of this witness that the complainant- prosecutrix and bail petitioner had been residing as husband and wife for more than two months in the room and at no point of time, complaint, if any, was ever lodged by the complainant- prosecutrix with regard to forcible physical relations if any, developed by the bail petitioner with her. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel representing the bail petitioner further contended that investigation in the case is complete and nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner and as such no fruitful purpose shall be served in case custodial interrogation as prayed for by the investigating agency is allowed. He further contended that the bail petitioner being local resident of the State shall always remain available for investigation and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice.