SUNNY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the bail/applicant/accused, under, Sec. 439 Cr. P.C., wherethrough, he seeks indulgence, of his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, whereat, he stands extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Ss. 376, 363, and, under Sec. 366 of the IPC, borne in case FIR No.20 of 2019, registered with Police Station, Jakhri.

(2.) The prosecutrix is a married lady, and, from her wedlock with one Roshan Lal, hence has given birth to two children. She joined the company of the bail-applicant, on Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 21/1/2019, and, thereafter continuously stayed in his company, at Gurgaon. The duration of the prosecutrix, hence staying, in the company of the bail-applicant, rather extended upto a period of one month. She alleges that during her afore stay, in the company of the bail-applicant, at Gurgaon, he subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Furthermore, in her statement, recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C., before the Magistrate concerned, she makes a disclosure, that, under duress and compulsion, exerted upon her, she succumbed to his sexual overtures, and, she also alleges that, hence, the bail-applicant procured her signatures, on, various documents. However, for the reasons, to be enunciated hereinafter, the afore allegations are incredible. (a) The prolonged duration of stay, of the prosecutrix, in the company of the bail- applicant, at Gurgaon, conjoined with the further factum, that she did not, during the afore prolonged duration of her stay thereat, hence raise any outcry, b) nor she proceeded to invite the attention, through, making telephonic communication(s) to her relatives, or to the nearest police station concerned, vis -vis, the penal misdemeanors' rather, belatedly ascribed, vis -vis, the bail- applicant/accused, c) thereupon the afore prolonged duration of her stay in the company of the bail-applicant, is, construed, to be, hence consensual, and, is rid of any stain of any coercion or duress, being exerted upon her, by the bail-applicant d) the prosecutrix, in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C., alleges, that her consent was obtained under threatening(s) meted to her, yet, the afore ascription, vis -vis, the bail-applicant, is, merely a simplicitor ascription, without it being accompanied by the gravity, and, enormity of the threatening(s) allegedly meted to her, (e) whereas only, upon, hers elaborating, in her statement, drawn under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. hence the enormity and gravity of the threatening(s) allegedly meted, upon her, thereupon alone it would be possible to, therefrom rather discern qua theirs working or could work, the, requisite effect upon her, and also when hence, it, was determinable whether the sexual intercourse, she held, with the bail-applicant being consensual or not.

(3.) In aftermath, for want of the afore material, the prolonged duration of her stay in the company of bail-applicant, at Gurgaon, is to be concluded to be consensual, and also, hers' being thereat hence subjected to sexual intercourse, is to be, prima-facie, rather concluded to be free from any stain of any coercion or any duress, standing exerted upon her, by the bail- applicant. Reiteratedly, obviously, this Court concludes that prima-facie, the bail-applicant is innocent, vis -vis, the offences alleged to be committed by him, (a) thereupon, this Court is constrained to make an order that the bail-applicant being released from judicial custody, however, subject to compliance, with, the hereinafter extracted conditions:-