Swaran Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.63/2012, dated 23.07.2012, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, under Sections 366, 376, 506(ii) IPC.

2. It has been stated that above case has been registered on the basis of written complaint made by prosecutrix. The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2012. The petitioner is in judicial custody.

3. The prosecution case is that prosecutrix is married woman and was working in MANREGA. The prosecutrix was introduced to the petitioner by one Yashpal Singh. The petitioner on the promise to Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 arrange a good job to the prosecutrix took her to Baddi on 13.07.2012. He compelled the prosecutrix to stay in a room and committed rape upon her. On 13.07.2012 prosecutrix came to possess the telephone of petitioner and called upon Village Pradhan, who told prosecutrix that her parents have made a complaint in the Police Station. On

20.07.2012, petitioner was away for his work, the prosecutrix freed herself from the clutches of the petitioner and came to Gagret. The prosecutrix presented herself before the police at Police Station, Gagret along with her parents, cousin and other persons. The prosecutrix stated that she had gone to Baddi of her own and had joined duty on

13.07.2012 in a factory where she had taken a room on rent near the factory and started residing there. The missing report filed by her parents earlier on 13.07.2012 was dropped.

4. On 21.07.2012 the prosecutrix sent complaint through post which was received by police. On that basis, the case has been registered. It has been stated that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, has erred in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner on

11.09.2012. The petitioner is in jail since 23.07.2012. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

5. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of complaint filed by prosecutrix. It has been stated that prosecutrix was got medically examined. The challan has been prepared on 16.09.2012 and is under scrutiny. It has come in the investigation that prosecutrix had worked for 5-6 months in Village Tatehra in MANREGA. Yashpal Singh introduced the prosecutrix to petitioner for arranging her job in some factory. On 3

12.07.2012 the petitioner contacted prosecutrix on phone and told her that he would come village Tatehra on 13.07.2012. He also told that for her job has been arranged. The prosecutrix on asking of the petitioner came on the road at 5.00 a.m. where she met the petitioner, who took the prosecutrix to Barotiwala. The petitioner remained absent from duty from 14.07.2012 to 19.07.2012.

6. On 13.07.2012, petitioner took the prosecutrix in his quarter. He committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix twice. The petitioner threatened the prosecutrix that in case she would disclose to anybody then he would kill her. The prosecutrix under the fear did not disclose the incident to anyone. Purshotam, landlord, of petitioner found that prosecutrix was not his wife, he asked petitioner to vacate the quarter. On this, petitioner vacated room of Purshotam and shifted in the house of Megh Raj on rent where petitioner and prosecutrix stayed from 14.07.2012 to 20.07.2012. The petitioner in the rented house of Megh Raj also committed forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix from 14.07.2012 to 19.07.2012.

7. On 17.07.2012, prosecutrix asked President, Gram Panchayat, Tatehra, on phone about the welfare of her children, the President told prosecutrix that her husband and police were locating her. On 20.07.2012, prosecutrix appeared in the Police Station, but out of shame, fear and threats, she did not disclose anything. On

21.07.2012, the prosecutrix had written a complaint Superintendent of Police and stated that on 20.07.2012 her parents, husband were in the Police Station and, therefore, due to fear, shame, she did not tell anything. The petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2012. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Una, on 11.09.2012. The prosecutrix has made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a clever person and in the event of bail, he can influence the prosecution witnesses. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

8. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case is that prosecutrix was introduced to petitioner by one Yashpal Singh. The petitioner contacted prosecutrix and told her that for her job has been arranged. The petitioner also told prosecutrix to meet him on

13.07.2012. The prosecutrix met petitioner at 5.00 a.m. and she came to Barotiwala and stayed with petitioner on 13.07.2012. It has been alleged that petitioner on 13.07.2012 committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix twice. Purshotam, landlord, of the petitioner found the presence of prosecutrix in the quarter of petitioner and told him to vacate the quarter when prosecutrix was not his wife.

9. The petitioner changed the quarter and shifted in a rented room of Megh Raj and stayed in that room from 14.07.2012 to

20.07.2012, during this period, the allegation is that petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with prosecutrix several times. On 17.07.2012, prosecutrix contacted the President of Gram Panchayat, Tatehra, and asked him about the welfare of her children. She came to know that some report has been filed by her husband and the police was locating her. The prosecutrix appeared before the police on 20.07.2012. She did not allege anything against the petitioner. On

21.07.2012, prosecutrix made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, levelling allegations that from 13.07.2012 to 20.07.2012, she has been forcibly raped by petitioner several times. The prosecution 5 case is that out of shame, fear and threats, she did not disclose to the police on 20.07.2012 about the rape committed by petitioner upon her. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that prosecutrix is aged about 32 years, married, having two children.

10. The prosecutrix stayed with petitioner from 13.07.2012 to

20.07.2012. The prosecutrix is aged about 32 years, married. It has not been pointed out that petitioner and prosecutrix were staying at an isolated place where no human-being was available to whom the prosecutrix could contact for help. The prosecutrix went from village Tatehra to Barotiwala of her own and returned after staying with petitioner for one week. The petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2012. The investigation in the case is complete. There is no allegation in the status report that in case petitioner is released on bail, he will not be available for trial. The allegation that petitioner is clever and in the event of bail, he will influence witnesses, is not supported by corroborative material on record. Hence, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

11. In view of above, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.63/2012, dated 23.07.2012, registered at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, under Sections 366, 376, 506(ii) IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ‘50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate, stationed at Amb with the conditions that the petitioner shall not overawe or terrorize any prosecution witness and shall maintain absolute peaceful and lawful conduct during the pendency of the trial. He shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial Court. 6

12. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy (cid:145)dasti(cid:146). September 24, 2012. (Krt) ( Kuldip Singh), Judge.