Sandeep Sharma DECISION
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Sequel to order dated 15.10.2019, whereby bail petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on interim bail in the event of their arrest in case FIR No. 42/2019, under Sections 376, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Mahila Police Station, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., SI Pawan Kumar, has come present alongwith records. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency.
2. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 4.10.2019, victim-prosecutrix (name withheld) lodged a complaint in the aforesaid police station alleging therein that on 28.9.2019, bail petitioner namely Mohammad Ali called her at a place called Mandi in connection with financing of vehicle. She alleged that at 4:00 pm, she reached Mandi, but above named Mohammad Ali arrived at Mandi bus stand at 8:00 pm, whereafter he informed that today work could not be done. She further alleged that thereafter, the bail petitioner took her along on the pretext that he has to purchase certain things and then, he would drop her at Kullu. She alleged that few kilo meters ahead of Mandi, one unknown person (i.e. co-accused Lai Hussain) also sat in the vehicle being driven by the Mohammad Ali and thereafter, they took her to some link road from the main road and when she objected, both the bail petitioners extended threats to her. Victim-prosecutrix further alleged that both the bail petitioners thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes in the vehicle in question. She also alleged that friend of the bail petitioner also bit on her cheek and thereafter, they both went to Kullu dropping her at a lonely place. She alleged that since there was injury on her cheek, she could not come out of her house for so many days. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, formal FIR as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against both the bail petitioners on 4.10.2019, under the aforesaid provisions of law at PS Mandi i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident.
3. Mr. Virender Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel representing the bail petitioners while praying for bail on behalf of the bail petitioners, contended that bare statements of victim-prosecutrix nowhere reveal case, if any, under Sections 376D against the bail petitioners and as such, they both deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned Senior counsel further contended that bare perusal of statements made by the victim-prosecutrix, itself suggests that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, joined the company of the bail petitioners and thereafter, falsely implicated them. While inviting attention of this Court to FIR No. 0033 dated 24.3.2017, registered at PS Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P., Mr. Chauhan, made an attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his submission that conduct of the victim-prosecutrix is not above the board and she is in habit of falsely implicating the people and as such, prayer made for grant of bail on behalf of the bail petitioners, who are 52 and 48 years, respectively, deserves to be accepted. Lastly, Mr. Chauhan, contended that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case bail petitioners are kept behind bars for an indefinite period during trial.
4. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, on the instructions of Investigating Officer fairly stated that though both the petitioners have joined investigation pursuant to directions contained in order dated 15.10.2019, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail, rather needs to be dealt w........