IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 207, Cr.P.C., accused is entitled to copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only after concerned Court takes cognizance of offence. Still, there is no restriction or bar on an investigating agency to bring statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to notice of concerned Court by handing over its copies or placing them on record along with status report.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.—The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest for alluring and raping a minor girl, has come up before this Court seeking regular bail on the grounds of false implication and further that the victim had earlier levelled similar allegations on two occasions, and in one such case, in her statement recorded on oath during the trial, she resiled from allegations and in her cross-examination also stated that she was more than 18 years of age, and that in her statement under S. 164 CrPC both the victims stated that they do not want to proceed with the case any further.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had filed the following bail petition:

(a) Cr.MP(M) No.877 of 2021, in this Court, decided on 25th May, 2021.

3. Para-8 of the bail petition declares the petitioner having no criminal history.

4. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that:

(a) On 28.12.2020, on noticing the missing two minor girls, ‘S’ aged 14 years and ‘Y’ aged 16 years, from Child Care Institute Mashobra at Tutikandi, the Officer-in-charge (Superintendent) immediately informed the police of Police Station West (Boileauganj), Shimla.

(b) The victims took a lift in a car from the Child Care Institute, and the car driver dropped them at the old Bus Stand, Shimla. Then, they took a phone of someone and called one Lovely, a friend of ‘Y,’ and asked him to take them from Shimla. Lovely refused to do so, but he sent them Rs.500/- on the Google pay account of the person, to which they called. The person who has Google pay account on the said mobile gave Rs.500/- to them.

(c) After that, both the victims reached the old bus stand, Shimla, and inquired about the bus to Una from a Lady named Kamla. Since it was night time, no bus was available to Una, and the victims spent the night of 28.12.2020 in the house of Kamla. On the morning of 29.12.2020, Kamla gave Rs.300/- to the victims and the victims left her home at around 9-10 a.m. Later, they took a bus to Bilaspur.

(d) While the victims were traveling on the bus, Ankush started talking with ‘Y’ and later gave her his mobile number and asked her to meet him in Bilaspur. After that, both the minor victims took another bus from Brahampukhar to Bilaspur, and while traveling on the said bus, another boy named Amit met them. They went to Laxmi Narayan Temple in Bilaspur. Later in the day, Amit arranged for a hotel room for the girls and himself. All of them spent the night in the same room where Amit raped ‘S’ aged 14 years.

(e) On 30.12.2020, they checked out from the hotel, and ‘Y’ called Ankush from the mobile of Amit, and he came to Bilaspur. After that, they all went for a stroll on the bank of the river, where Ankush molested ‘Y.’ Later in the day, Amit left, and Ankush arranged for a room in the same hotel for the night of 30.12.2020. After that, he left the hotel, telling the victims that he would get some food but did not return. ‘Y’ tried to call him through someone’s phone, but he did not pick up.

(f) On 31.12.2020, ‘Y’ again called him in the morning when Ankush said that he would not come back. Both the victims asked for Rs.500/- from hotel staff to pay for the room’s rent. Then, both of them took a bus from Bilaspur to Chandigarh. On reaching Chandigarh, ‘S’ called one Vicky (petitioner herein) and asked him to come to Chandigarh, to which he asked the victims to go to Ambala. On reaching Ambala, the victims informed Vicky, who came there to pick them up with another boy named Tonny. They picked them up on two different motorcycles. Vicky picked up ‘S’ and Tonny’ Y.’ They took them to the room and raped them.

(g) The victim stated in her statements recoded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C, that in the said room, it was Tonny, who had established sexual relations with her, whereas, Vikky, petitioner herein, had established sexual relations with the victim ‘S’. A perusal of the statements of the victim ‘S’ under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C also corroborated the same