Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 951 (HP)

SUDHIR SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-11-13

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. S.I. Pratap Singh, Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. is present alongwith record. Record perused and returned. Status report filed and taken on record. 2. IN this application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, petitioner Sudhir Singh, who stands arrested on 10.8.2013, is seeking regular bail in relation to F.I.R. No.236/13, dated 5.8.2013, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., under the provisions of Sections 366, 365, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is the allegation of the prosecution that prosecutrix who is a student of 12th Class was kidnapped by accused Sanjeev Pathania from the lawful custody of her Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? parents on 5.8.2013. Accused Sanjeev Pathania alongwith his accomplices, including present petitioner, took the prosecutrix to different places. On 10.8.2013, under threat, Sanjeev Pathania solemnized marriage with the prosecutrix at Delhi. Eventually, prosecutrix was recovered from Delhi on 21.8.2013. 3. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail. 4. PETITIONER has placed on record documents, showing certificate of marriage solemnized in Delhi on 10.8.2013 at Arya Samaj Vedic Parchark Samiti (Regd.), 1/2184, Shri Bharat Mandi, Jamuna Bazar Delhi-06. The fact that the marriage was solemnized is not in dispute. In fact, prosecutrix has alleged that she was threatened by accused Sanjeev Pathania to solemnize the marriage. Significantly, in her statement she categorically does not state that at the time when she was taken away from the lawful guardianship/custody of her parents, the present petitioner Sudhir Singh was present. She also does not state that the present petitioner accompanied her to Delhi or was present at the time of solemnization of such marriage. Petitioner's name surfaces only in the statement of Shri Manjeet Singh who happens to be a relative of the prosecutrix.. 5. KEEPING in view the entire attending circumstances and taking a holistic view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case in his favour. 6. PETITIONER's custodial interrogation is no longer required as investigation is complete. Petitioner's name surfaces only in the statement of Shri Manjeet Singh who happens to be a relative of the prosecutrix.. 5. KEEPING in view the entire attending circumstances and taking a holistic view of the matter, petitioner has made out a case in his favour. 6. PETITIONER's custodial interrogation is no longer required as investigation is complete. Keeping in view the aforesaid attending circumstances, petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner conduct himself as to disentitle him from the discretionary power. Also, he shall always make himself available during trial. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide letter No.HHCVIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.3.2013. 7. 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.