Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 282 (HP)

PRITHI PAUL v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-09

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. ASI Kuldeep Kumar, I.O. P.S Chirgaon, is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report taken on record. 2. F.I.R No. 9/2013, dated 26.3.2013, under Section 376 IPC, was registered at Police Station Chirgaon. Apprehending arrest petitioner approached this Court, seeking bail under the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 28.03.2013 this Court passed an interim order, directing that in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to his complying with the conditions imposed therein. According to ASI Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, petitioner has joined investigation and is fully cooperative. So far, in the investigation it has come out that the husband of the prosecutrix has not made out any grievance with regard to the alleged offence. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter appears to be that the family of the petitioner, his brother and prosecutrix are residing under the same roof though they are maintaining separate kitchen. Mr. Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at times they have been eating from the same kitchen. It is not in dispute that during the course of investigation, petitioner has joined investigation and fully cooperated. 3. IN the given facts and the circumstances, petitioner has prima facie made out a case for grant of bail. 4. THIS Court has taken into account the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the material so far collected by the prosecution during investigation. I am of the considered view that there is no apprehension made out by the State that in the event of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, he would tamper with the witnesses or extend any threats to the complainant. There is no probability of the petitioner abusing his liberty nor would he interfere or in any manner impede with the course of justice. Petitioner is also not likely to flee from justice. He, through his learned counsel, undertakes to make himself available during the course of investigation, if required, as also during trial, if any. Having taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. 5. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 28.3.2013 is made absolute. Having taken into consideration the overall attending circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show that there is reason to believe that the threat of arrest is imminent. 5. FOR all the aforesaid reasons, interim order dated 28.3.2013 is made absolute. The petitioner shall be on bail till such time Challan is presented in the Court for trial where after he shall approach the Court for regular bail, in accordance with law. Needless to add, during this period petitioner shall fully comply with all the statutory conditions laid down under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of abundant caution, it is clarified that petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence nor try to influence the witnesses. He shall make himself available for investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. 6. ANY observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.