SUNIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 4.12.2019, whereby this Court after taking the bail petitioner into custody, enlarged him on bail in FIR No. 274/2019 dated 3.12.2019, under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered with Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla, HP, SI Jai Dev, I/o P.S. West Shimla, has come present along with records. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Mr. Sharma while opposing the bail application contends that keeping in view the gravity of Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner may be rejected outrightly. Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions of Investigating Officer, fairly states that pursuant to order dated 4.12.2019, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and is fully co-operating. He further contends that though no recovery remains to be effected from the bail petitioner, but his presence is still required for getting him medically examined.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially statement of victim-prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, this Court finds that victim-prosecutrix (name withheld), who is 29 years, had prior proximity with the bail petitioner. As per own statement of victim-prosecutrix, she knew the present bail petitioner since year, 2011 and since then, they have been meeting each other frequently. If the statements of victim-prosecutrix given to the police as well as Judicial Magistrate under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC, respectively, are read juxtaposing each other, it can be safely concluded that since year, 2011, bail petitioner as well as victim prosecutrix were in constant touch and they had developed intimate relationship. Though victim-prosecutrix has alleged that she has been repeatedly sexually assaulted against her wishes by the bail petitioner on the pretext of marriage, but having taken note of the fact that victim prosecutrix is major, this Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that she was fully capable of understanding the consequences of her being in the company of the bail petitioner, to whom, she knew for more than eight years. Otherwise also, it is not understood that why victim prosecutrix kept mum for eight years. It is only after the refusal of bail petitioner to marry the prosecutrix, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the bail petitioner.