SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 27.6.2019, whereby petitioner was enlarged on interim bail in connection with FIR No. 43/19 dated 25.6.2019, under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code, registered at PS Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., SI/SHO Mehar Chand, P.S. Shillai, District Sirmaur, H.P., has come present along with records. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, 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.

(2.) Record made available to this Court reveals that on 25.6.2019, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint at PS Shillai, District Sirmaur, HP, alleging therein that in the year, 2018, she came in contact of the bail petitioner, who met her for the first time at a place called Hevna. As per complainant, she provided her phone number to the bail petitioner on his askance and thereafter, they were in close contact with each other. As per victim-prosecutrix, bail petitioner allured her on account of her marriage and thereafter, sexually assaulted her on number of occasions against her wishes. She alleged that lastly on 21/22.5.2019, bail petitioner took her to room of his friend at a place called Rajban and again sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Now since bail petitioner refused to marry victim-prosecutrix, she ldoged present compliant against him, on the basis of which, formal FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 27.6.2019, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and is fully cooperating. He further states that though investigation is not complete yet, but at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner. He further contends that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserves any leniency and as such, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail at this stage may be rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that it has specifically come in the investigation that after lodging of FIR, present bail petitioner has extended threats to the victim-prosecutrix and as such, it would not be in the interest of victim-prosecutrix, if bail petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General contends that in the event of his being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner can make an attempt to cause harm to the victim-prosecutrix and temper with the evidence. He also states that in case, this Court intends to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail, he may be directed to make himself available during investigation as well as trial, as and when required.