Ravi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Mr. Partap Singh Goverdhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This is an application for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.54/2012 dated 16.7.2012, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC.

2. It has been stated that a false case has been registered under Sections 376, 506 IPC against petitioner at Police Station, Parwanoo. The petitioner was arrested on 17.7.2012 and since then he is in custody.

3. The petitioner had moved application for grant of bail which has been dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes on 30.8.2012. The investigation in the case is complete, no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are totally false and manipulated and have been levelled with due deliberations with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioner at the instance of the wife of the petitioner with whom the petitioner has not cordial relations.

4. The petitioner has committed no offence, this is also evident from the statement of prosecutrix by way of affidavit dated

9.8.2012. No injury or struggle marks were found on the vital parts of the prosecutrix. The petitioner is innocent. He 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 on 16.7.2012 victim alongwith her husband came to the Police Station and lodged the report. The victim has stated that her husband has two brothers who are elder to him. All of them were living together. The wife of Ravi Kumar elder brother of her husband was living separately in a rented house. Ravi Kumar had been doing obscene acts with the complainant. On 10.7.2012, the complainant all alone had gone to factory, her husband was not well and had not gone to the factory. On her return from factory Ravi Kumar met her at about

6.30.p.m. in his car. He asked the complainant to sit in the car. He apologized for the obscene acts which he had earlier committed with the complainant. The complainant boarded the car.

6. Ravi Kumar turned the car towards Shimla instead of Kalka. The complainant asked him where he was going. Ravi Kumar told the complainant to remain keep quite otherwise he would kill the complainant, her husband and child. The complainant out of fear remained in the car. Ravi Kumar took the complainant near Datiyar above the road in hotel Nest. The complainant again asked Ravi Kumar where he had taken her but Ravi Kumar again told the complainant to remain keep quite otherwise he would kill her. The complainant due to fear did not say anything.

7. Ravi Kumar committed sexual intercourse with her through out night. On 11.7.2012 in the morning Ravi Kumar dropped her at Kalka. The complainant disclosed the incident to her mother- in-law Raj Rani. The complainant due to shame had not gone to her in-laws house but had gone to her parents’ house at village Madhna Chandimandir. The complainant disclosed the incident to her mother also. On account of fear of Ravi Kumar she had not reported the matter to the Police Station. The complainant stated that she wanted to be medically examined. On this case was registered. Ravi Kumar was arrested on 17.7.2012. The challan has been submitted in the Court on 10.10.2012. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application.

8. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the whole case has been concocted by the prosecutrix at the instance of Sapna wife of petitioner with whom the petitioner has strained relations. Sapna is living separately. It appears complainant has realized her mistake and now she has sworn an affidavit dated 9.8.2012, a copy of such affidavit has been placed on record. It has been submitted that alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 10.7.2012 but the case was registered on 16.7.2012 after deliberations in order to falsely implicate the petitioner. In the affidavit dated 9.8.2012, the prosecutrix has given her age 25 years. She is married having a child also. The petitioner is innocent. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that generally no woman would involve herself in a case of present nature just to help or at the instance of her sister-in-law. The petitioner has been named clearly and specifically by complainant, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.

9. The alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 10/11.7.2012. The case was registered on 16.7.2012. The complainant at the time of commission of offence was about 25 years of age. The petitioner is in custody since 17.7.2012, the investigation in the case is complete. The challan has already been submitted in the Court. The petitioner has claimed that complainant as per her affidavit dated 9.8.2012 has absolved the petitioner. As per prosecution, complainant remained with the petitioner through out the night. As per allegations complainant went with the petitioner in the car and returned in the car on the next morning but nothing has been pointed out from the record that during this period she protested while going towards Datiyar and returning from that place. It is not the prosecution case that in case petitioner is released on bail he will not be available for trial. The trial of the case will take some time. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

10. In view of above, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.54/2012 dated 16.7.2012, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC. on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one sur ety of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate stationed at Kasauli with the condition that petitioner shall not overawe or terrorize any prosecution witnesses. He shall maintain absolute peace and lawful conduct during the pendency of the case. He shall not leave the country during the pendency of the trial without permission of the trial Court.

11. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. October 15, 2012 (sks) (Kuldip Singh), Judge.