Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1028 (HP)

SUKH RAM v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-11-11

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 79 of 2009 dated 23.4.2009 registered at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 363, 366A, 368, 342, 376G, 305 and 120B I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent. He has committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case under the influence of local persons, who are opponents of petitioner, who is an Astrologist/Exorcist. It has been submitted that petitioner is earning his livelihood by practicing astrology and by healing people by his spiritual powers as an exorcist. The petitioner has alleged that on 22.04.2009 Charan Dass co-accused came to the place of the petitioner alongwith a girl and he requested the petitioner to remove her evil spirit. Charan Dass asked the petitioner to allow him to stay in a room during the night and to do the healing work on the next day. In these circumstances, petitioner allowed Charan Dass to stay in the room alongwith girl, who was calimed by Charan Dass to be his niece. 3. On 23.04.2009 morning petitioner came to know that the girl was not feeling well and, therefore, he advised Charan Dass to take the girl to hospital. Charan Dass and girl were going to the hospital when they were intercepted by the villagers and were handed over to the police. 4. It has been alleged that the girl had not stated anything against the petitioner. There is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner for the commission of offence. The police has filed the challan and charged the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 342, 368, 376G, 305 and 120B I.P.C. The said girl had since died. It has been submitted that statement of deceased prosecutrix recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C exonerates the petitioner. 5. The petitioner had a paralytic attack in those days and was undergoing treatment. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. It has been submitted that petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 16.10.2009. In the last the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner is ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. It has been submitted that petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 16.10.2009. In the last the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and submitted that on the statement of deceased prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr.P.C. the case was registered. It has been submitted that prosecutrix consumed something and died on 23.4.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 23.4.2009. The learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for the dismissal of the bail application. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. As per birth certificate, the deceased prosecutrix was born on 15.02.1995. The occurrence took place on 22/23.04.2009, therefore, on the alleged day of commission of offence the deceased was 14 years. In the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. it has been stated that during night Charan Dass and Sukh Ram took liquor and she was confined in a room. The prosecutrix was not feeling well. Sukh Ram confined the prosecutrix and Charan Dass in a room and bolted the room from outside. There are serious allegations against the petitioner including the allegations for offence punishable under Section 120B I.P.C. According to prosecution the petitioner has played an active part in the commission of offence attributed to him as well as to Charan Dass. 8. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 16.10.2009 by learned Sessions Judge and the present bail application was filed by the petitioner on 27.10.2009 without indicating the change of circumstance. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. 10. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.