Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (1.) The bail applicant/accused, is, suffering judicial incarceration, for his allegedly committing offence(s), constituted under Sections 363,366, and, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and, in respect thereof, F.I.R. No. 7 of 2018 of 8.2.2018, is, registered with Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, H.P.
(2.) The Investigating Officer is present in Court, and, has placed before this Court, the apt status report. The FIR, with respect to the alleged offences, is, lodged at the instance, of one, Shiv Kumar. Even if, assumingly, the prosecutrix was a minor, at the stage of hers' joining the company of the bailapplicant, and, when prima-facie hence an offence borne under Section 366, IPC, may be, rather committed by the bailapplicant, (i) nonetheless, the prima-donna factum, enjoining ascertainment by this Court, appertains qua whether in contemporanity, of, the prosecutrix being in the purported unlawful custody of the bail-applicant, qua thereat, the accused rather subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse. In respect thereof, the learned counsel appearing for the bailapplicant has fairly placed on record, the statement rendered on oath by the prosecutrix, before the learned trial Magistrate, wherein she makes echoing(s) qua the bail-applicant/accused, on 9.2.2018, rather subjecting her to forcible sexual intercourse. Given the aforesaid ascriptions qua criminal inculpability, vis-à-vis, the bail-applicant/accused, thereupon , it is also significant to determine whether in contemporanity thereof,the prosecutrix being a minor, whereupon hence a befitting conclusion, would emanate, qua the apt penal ascription(s), rather holding prima-facie veracity. (i) However, upon material existing on record, making unfoldment(s) qua in contemporanity, vis-à-vis, 9.2.2018, hers thereat being a major, (ii) thereupon this Court may be constrained, to, while making a wholesome reading of her statement, make a conclusion, qua whether hers, meteing an apposite valid consent to the bailapplicant. (iii) whereupon, it is also incumbent upon this Court, to, also hence obviously make a wholesome reading of her statement, as, rendered before the learned trial Magistrate, wherein she makes voicing(s), qua hers, prior thereto, and, upto 9.2.2018, rather visiting various places, in the company, of the bail-applicant, iii) for reiteratedly hence determining whether the apt penal ascription(s) made by her qua the bail/applicant, rather standing belied or not. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix reveals, that, on 9.2.2018, she had acquired majority. Consequently, she thereat held, the, apt capacity to mete a valid consent, vis-à-vis the accused, for the latter proceeding to hold her to coitus. Furthermore, she has, in her statement on oath, made before the learned trial Magistrate, echoed qua hers, not, meteing any consent to the bailapplicant/accused, for the latter subjecting her to sexual intercourse, rather the bail-applicant perpetrating forcible sexual intercourse upon her. The afore-referred statement rendered on oath by the prosecutrix, before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, cannot, prima-facie, be imputed any grain of truth, (a) given hers also making echoing(s) therein qua hers joining the company, of the bailapplicant/accused, on 4.2.2018, and, continuously thereafter upto 9.2.2018, hers traveling to various places, in his company. (b) Hence reading the aforesaid echoing(s) in conjunction, with, hers ascribing penal misdemeanors, vis-à-vis, the bailapplicant, rather engenders an inference qua, even if assumingly, the prosecutrix, during hers, being in the purported unlawful company, of the bail-applicant, given hers' thereat being a minor ( c) yet with, hers on acquiring majority, hers' thereat being subjected to sexual intercourse, by the bailapplicant/accused, cannot bolster any inference, qua it holding any overtones, of, coercion, rather with hers, during her stay with the accused, hence developing intimacy with him, contrarily fillips an inference qua hers meteing a valid apt consent, to the bail-applicant, for the latter holding her to coitus.
(3.) The Investigating Officer present in Court, has, stated that after completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C. hence stands filed before the committal Court. Consequently with the apt investigation(s) being complete, thereupon, this Court does not deem it fit, and, proper to prolong the judicial custody, of, the bail applicant, especially when no material has been adduced by the State, with an apt display therein that in the event of the bailapplicant being released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence. Consequently, thereupon this Court is constrained to accord the facility of bail to the bail-applicant. In aftermath, the present bail application is allowed, and, the indulgence of the bail is granted to the bail applicant, subject to compliance with the following conditions: i) That he shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with two local sureties, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh. ii) That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency. iii) That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police. iv) That he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. v) That he shall deposit his passports, if any, with the Police Station, concerned. v) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody.;