DESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dated 30.10.2018, whereby bail petitioner namely, Desh Raj was ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest in relation to FIR No.268 of 2018, dated 13.10.2018, under Sections 366, 376, 120B and 506 of Penal Code registered at police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P, SI Hem Raj has come present alongwith the record. Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed on record status report, prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Close scrutiny of the record/status report, reveals that on 13.10.2018 complainant, namely Smt. Sarla Devi, who happened to be mother of the victim (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged complaint at police Station, Balh, District Mandi,H.P., alleging therein that on 7.10.2018 her daughter had gone to the house of her friend Veena Devi, but she did not return till 9.10.2018, whereafter maternal Uncle of Veena Devi gave a phone call to her daughter Pooja, whereby he informed that her daughter i.e. prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with his Nephew i.e. present bail petitioner Desh Raj. Complainant alleged that on 10.10.2018, maternal Uncle of bail petitioner came to her house and informed that prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the bail petitioner, but they refused to send her daughter to her house. On 12.10.2018, person namely Kishan Chand informed that function is being organized on account of marriage of bail petitioner with the prosecutrix, but suddenly on 13.10.2018, at 7:00 AM somebody on phone informed that prosecutrix has left the house of bail petitioner without intimating anybody. Complainant alleged that bail petitioner in connivance with his relatives allured her daughter and subsequently compelled her to solemnize marriage with him. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR detailed hereinabvoe, came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner on 13.10.2018 under Sections 366, 376 and 120B of Penal Code. On 15.10.2018, prosecutrix came back to her village and allegedly informed complainant that she was forced to solemnize marriage with bail petitioner, who sexually assaulted her against her wishes. On 15.10.2018, police got recorded the statement of prosecutrix under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C, wherein she stated that bail petitioner with the help of his relatives forcibly solemnize marriage with her and thereafter sexually assaulted her. Police also got prosecutrix medically examined, wherein it has been opined that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out, however report of FSL, is still awaited.

(3.) Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, fairly stated that pursuant to order dated 30.10.2018 bail petitioner has joined the investigation and is fully cooperating in the investigation. He also stated that at this stage nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner, however his enlargement on bail at this stage, can be detrimental to the investigation and as such, prayer made in the instant application may be rejected.