DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 366 and 376 of the IPC at Women Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. The petitioner has been married to the victim. They were major and the marriage ceremony was solemnized at Hadimba Mata Mandir, Manali. The petitioner was 23 years old and the victim was 19 years old at the time of the marriage. The petitioner came to his village along with the victim and stayed there from 26/7/2023 to 31/7/2023. The victim, the petitioner, his two sisters and their children were going to the house of the petitioner's sister on 31/7/2023. Their car was intercepted at Lagmanwin. The victim was taken from the petitioner's custody. The petitioner was also beaten. The matter was reported to the police and FIR No. 138 of 2023 was registered. The mother-in-law of the petitioner lodged an FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the father of the victim made a complaint that the victim was missing since 26/7/2023. She had transferred ? 15,000/- to the account of the petitioner and the victim's father suspected that the petitioner had kidnapped her. The police registered the FIR. The victim made a statement before the police that she had voluntarily gone to Manali with the petitioner and had married him at Hadimba Mata Mandir. She also produced the Certificate of Marriage. Her statement was recorded in the Court. Further investigation was conducted by the Women's Police Station. The police found that the petitioner had married the victim. The police seized the footage of the CCTV camera and obtained the affidavits regarding the marriage. The victim made a statement that the petitioner was threatening her for three years and he was asking her to transfer the amount to his bank account. The police checked the record and found that the amount was transferred from the account of the mother and grandmother of the victim. As per the report of analysis, the DNA taken from the semen stain found in the Duppatta of the victim matched with the DNA of the petitioner. The Medical Officer stated that the possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. The victim made a statement that the petitioner had administered something to her and maintained physical relations. The petitioner can intimidate the witnesses and he can abscond in case, he is released on bail; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard Mr Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the informant-victim.