SAMIN THAPA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 10.9.2019, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of his arrest in case FIR No. 8 of 2019, dated 5.9.2019 under Section 376 of IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, ASI. Gopal Sain Negi has come present in Court alongwith the record. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, fairly stated that pursuant to order dated 10.9.2019, bail petitioner has already joined the investigation and he is fully co-operating with the investigating agency. Mr. Sood further stated that though at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, while making this Court to peruse the record, strenuously argued that there is ample evidence suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner repeatedly sexually harassed the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Mr. Sood, further contended that though record reveals that at one point of time both the prosecutrix and the bail petitioner solemnized marriage, but even after that bail petitioner has not taken any steps till date to take the prosecutrix to his house.

(3.) Having heard leaned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that prosecutrix, who is admittedly a 30 years old lady had prior acquaintance with the bail petitioner and prior to alleged incident they had been meeting each other quite frequently. As per own statement of the prosecutrix, bail petitioner was her good friend and he was insisting for solemnization of marriage. During their aforesaid friendship, they develop intimate relationship. Statement of prosecutrix further reveals that at one point of time bail petitioner had also made an effort to prevail upon his parents for his marriage with the prosecutrix, but such proposal could not be materialized. Prosecutrix in her statement has categorically stated that on 8.8.2019 bail petitioner had solemnized marriage with her, but till date he has not taken any steps to take her to his house. Though, allegation of the prosecutrix is that she was sexually assaulted against her wishes by the bail petitioner, but having noticed the conduct of the prosecutrix, which is quite apparent from her statements given to the police and the Judicial Magistrate under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., respectively, this Court is convinced and satisfied that she was fully capable of understanding the consequence of her being in the company of the bail petitioner. Record reveals that prosecutrix is a 30 years old lady and mother of two daughters and as such, it cannot be presumed that bail petitioner taking undue advantage of plight and innocence of the prosecutrix sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Moreover, as has been noticed hereinabove, prosecutrix has already solemnized marriage with the bail petitioner and as of today, complaint, if any, of the prosecutrix is that bail petitioner is not taking her to her matrimonial house.