DEV KHATTRI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely, Dev Khattri, who is behind the bars since 4.4.2019, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying therein for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.27/2019, dated 3.4.2019, under Sections 363, 366-A 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at police Station, Jubbal District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 24.7.2019, ASI Sohan Lal has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, 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.

(3.) Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that on 3.4.2019, complainant namely, Sh. Rattan Bahadur lodged a complaint at police Station, Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that her minor daughter ( hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix', name withheld to protect her identity ) aged 13 years has gone missing since 1.4.2019 and he has suspicion that bail petitioner namely, Dev Khattri has eloped with her on the pretext of marriage. On 4.4.2019 police recovered the prosecutrix from the room of the bail petitioner at village Ratoh, Post office Luhari, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. Police after recording the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, registered the case against the bail petitioner under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and since than bail petitioner is behind the bars. Police also got recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, wherein prosecutrix specifically denied the allegation of her being sexually assaulted by the bail petitioner against her wishes. She stated before the Magistrate that since nothing wrong has been committed by the bail petitioner, no action may be taken against him. Prosecutrix also refused to undergo the medical test and as such, there is no corroborative medical evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the bail petitioner.