BHAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail has been preferred by the bail petitioner on the ground that he is innocent whereas a case under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against him on the allegations that he had removed one Kumari Sarita from the custody of her lawful guardian and committed rape on her. His application for grant of anticipatory bail is stated to have been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the bail -petitioner, in brief, is that Kumari Sarita is about 14 years of age. She was removed from the house of her parents by the bail -petitioner and his co -accused, namely, Ram Bhagat, Moti Ram, Kanthi Lal on the pretext that her mother was seriously ill at Kalpa and had called the prosecutrix there. When the prosecutrix was accompanying the bail -petitioner and the aforesaid co -accused on September 26, 1999 to go to Rekong Peo, in fact, she was removed in a van to Rupi and was then taken to village Manjhgaon (Rupi) on the pretext that first she should meet her sister there. The sister of the prosecutrix is stated to be married in village Manjhgaon (Rup) to accused Ram Bhagat. In Rupi the prosecutrix was taken to and kept in a house of the bail -petitioner. In the evening a few villagers collected over there and took liquor etc. The prosecutrix was informed that she had been brought there so that she is married to Bhagat Ram, bail -petitioner. On the night intervening 26th/27th of September, 1999, the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse by the bail -petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the bail -petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the investigation record.