Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 697 (HP)

Jagdev Singh v. State of H. P

2012-10-09

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This is an application for releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 118 of 2012 dated 17.8.2012, registered at Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 495, 120-B IPC. 2. It has been stated that above case has been registered at the instance of complainant at Police Station, Barsar. The petitioners are innocent; they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. The complainant was being looked after and maintained by petitioners, her education expenses were also borne by the petitioners. The complainant is aged more than 21 years. 3. The marriage of complainant with Kamal Kishore was performed on 10.7.2012, thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. The expenses of the said marriage were borne by the petitioners. The petitioners were not aware that Kamal Kishore was already married as alleged. The petitioners would have gain nothing by marrying the complainant to a person who was already married. The prosecution story as against the petitioners is highly improbable. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 17.8.2012, at present they are in judicial lock up. The petitioners had moved bail applications which were dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track court, Hamirpur on 29.8.2012. The petitioners again moved for bail which was dismissed on 17.9.2012. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation, if any still left. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. No purpose will be served for detaining the petitioners. 5. The mother of petitioner No.1 is old woman aged about 92 years suffering from old age and low vision. There is no one to look after the mother of petitioner No.1 as petitioner No.1 and his wife petitioner No.2 are in judicial lock up. The animals of the petitioners are also without any attendant. The other accused namely Sarita Devi and Promila Devi have been released on bail by the High Court on 27.8.2012. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 6. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that a case has been registered on the complaint of prosecutrix who came to the police station on 17.8.2012 alongwith several women. The complainant aged 21 years has stated that on account of poverty she could not continue her education. 6. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that a case has been registered on the complaint of prosecutrix who came to the police station on 17.8.2012 alongwith several women. The complainant aged 21 years has stated that on account of poverty she could not continue her education. The petitioner No.2 offered to help complainant to continue her education. The prosecutrix joined petitioners and helped them in their household work. Harbanshi Devi had been visiting petitioner No.2 for the marriage of her son. The petitioner No.2 fixed the marriage of the complainant wi th the son of Harbanshi Devi and the marriage was performed on 10.7.2012 at Shimla in a hotel. 7. The petitioner No.2 took complainant in her house. It has been stated that the prosecutrix had not visited the house of Harbanshi Devi. The complainant has stated that Kamal Kishore after marriage had been visiting her, he maintained physical relations with her. Harbanshi Devi is the aunt of Kamal Kishore. Kamal Kishore had been living with his aunt Harbanshi Devi in Village Luharli Kalwal since his childhood. 8. Kamal Kishore was married with Shalini Devi in the year 2004 and he has children from that marriage. On 16.8.2012 the prosecutrix came to know the injustice done to her. The jewellary which was given to her in the marriage is with petitioner NO.2. At the time of marriage petitioners and some others were present. On this case has been registered. 9. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted. The petitioners were arrested on 17.8.2012. It has come in the investigation that the prosecutrix has one sister and two brothers, their father had died. The petitioners are the immediate neighbour s of the prosecutrix. The petitioners kept the prosecutrix with them after the death of her father. The petitioners were aware that Kamal Kishore was already married and has one daughter from his previous marriage. This was not disclosed to prosecutrix, who remained under the impression that Kamal Kishore was unmarried. Kamal Kishore after marriage did not take prosecutrix to his house Luharli. The prosecutrix stayed with petitioners. 10. Kamal Kishore married with Shalini on 29.11.2004. Harbanshi Devi has no child from the marriage, she adopted Kamal Kishore as her son. Kamal Kishore had not treated his wife Shalini properly. She was not attended when she suffered from tuberculosis. Kamal Kishore after marriage did not take prosecutrix to his house Luharli. The prosecutrix stayed with petitioners. 10. Kamal Kishore married with Shalini on 29.11.2004. Harbanshi Devi has no child from the marriage, she adopted Kamal Kishore as her son. Kamal Kishore had not treated his wife Shalini properly. She was not attended when she suffered from tuberculosis. The daughter of Kamal Kishore from Shalini is aged five years. Shalini has lodged a report of domestic violence against Kamal Kishore. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 11. Heard and perused the record. In substance, the allegations against the petitioners are that they were aware of the earlier marriage of Kamal Kishore with Shalini. They did not disclose this fact to prosecutrix and married her with Kamal Kishore on 10.7.2012 at Shimla. It emerges from the material on record that after the death of father of prosecutrix, the petitioners offered help to the prosecutrix for continuing her education. The prosecutrix started living with the petitioners and helped petitioners in their routine work. 12. Harbanshi Devi has adopted Kamal Kishore who was married with Shalini on 29.11.2004. Kamal Kishore has one daughter also from Shalini. According to prosecutrix relations between Kamal Kishore and Shalini were not cordial. Harbanshi Devi contacted petitioner No.2 for the marriage of Kamal Kishore with prosecutrix. The petitioners and Harbanshi Devi are not living in the same village. According to prosecution, the petitioners were aware of earlier marriage of Kamal Kishore with Shalini, but how they were aware of earlier marriage of Kamal Kishore with Shalini that has not elaborated. 13. Harbanshi Devi is not related to petitioners, according to prosecution she was visiting the petitioners. There is no allegations that petitioners duped prosecutrix for her marriage with Kamal Kishore for some pecuniary advantage or for some other consideration. It has not been elaborated what the petitioners were to gain by solemnizing marriage of prosecutrix with Kamal Kishore. The motive behind the marriage of prosecutrix with Kamal Kishore at the instance of petitioners has not been explained. 14. It is not the case of the prosecution that marriage was performed over night; rather it is the case of the pr osecution that several persons attended the marriage though it was performed at Shimla in a temple on 10.7.2012. The case was registered on 17.8.2012. 14. It is not the case of the prosecution that marriage was performed over night; rather it is the case of the pr osecution that several persons attended the marriage though it was performed at Shimla in a temple on 10.7.2012. The case was registered on 17.8.2012. The mother of the petitioner No.1 is aged about 92 years. The petitioners have kept animals also. It has been submitted that there is no one to look after the aged mother of petitioner No.1 and the animals of the petitioners as the petitioners who are husband and wife, both are inside the jail. 15. It has been stated that Harbanshi Devi has absconded. It is not certain how much time will be taken for the conclusion of the trial. There is no allegation that petitioners in case released on bail will not be available for trial. The apprehension of the prosecution that in the event of bail the petitioners will influence the prosecution witnesses is not supported by corroborative material. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr,.P.C. 16. In view of above, petition is allowed. The petitioner s are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.118 of 2012 dated 17.8.2012, registered at Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 495, 120-B IPC on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barsar with the condition that the petitioner s shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. They shall maintain peaceful and lawful conduct during the pendency of the trial, they shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court. 17. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.