SAJID ALI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Sajid Ali, who is behind the bars since 1.3.2015, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 36 of 2015, dated 25.2.2015, under Ss.363, 366 and 376 IPC and S.4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Sequel to order dated 31.1.2019, SI Ramesh Kumar, has come present with the record. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, 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.

(3.) Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals on 25.2.2015, complainant, Rajiv Kumar, lodged a complaint at Police Station, Baddi that his niece, who was 16 years of age, had gone to school on 11.2.2015, but till date, she has not come back. Complainant stated in the complaint that he has a suspicion that the person namely Sajid Ali (bail petitioner) has allured his niece on the pretext of marriage and they have run away. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police started the investigation and finally on 1.3.2015, recovered niece of the complainant from Raja Vihar, Delhi. Niece of the complainant was found to be living with the bail petitioner at Delhi in a rented accommodation. Immediately the police arrested the bail petitioner and brought him to Baddi. Police got the medical examination of prosecutrix conducted at CH Baddi and thereafter lodged FIR against the bail petitioner under Ss. 363, 366A and 376 IPC and S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on 7.3.2015 and since then, bail petitioner is behind the bars. Police also got statement of victim recorded under S.164 CrPC, before Magistrate, wherein she completely denied the factum of her being kidnapped by the bail petitioner. She stated before the Magistrate that she, of her own volition, had gone to Delhi to join the company of the bail petitioner. She, in her statement before the Magistrate stated that since she used to like the bail petitioner, she wanted to marry him but her parents were opposed to their marriage, and as such, she of her own volition left her house to join the company of the bail petitioner. She, in her statement, specifically stated that no illegal act was committed upon her by the bail petitioner.