Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 380 (HP)

Jeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-04-10

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Talok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No.13/2014 registered on 31.03.2014, at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The story of the prosecution as emerges from the status report is that the complainant/prosecutrix has alleged that the petitioner in the year 2007 had telephoned her expressing his liking to her and thereafter he continuously kept making enormous calls to her. It is further alleged that the petitioner is the nephew of the prosecutrix. In 2011 during Panchayat elections, the prosecutrix had gone to her parental house where the petitioner also reached at about 10.00 p.m. and took away the prosecutrix on the pretext that her husband had called her to his house. The prosecutrix accompanied petitioner along with her children. The petitioner made various attempts to stop the vehicle and try and get the prosecutrix board down the vehicle, but the prosecutrix resisted. At a place known as 'Jamta', the petitioner stopped the vehicle and pulled down the prosecutrix and dragged her to the jungle where petitioner is alleged to have committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner repeatedly assaulted the prosecutrix on the pretext that he had some recordings with him and would disclose the same to her family members. The further case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix disclosed this to one of her friends ( name with-held), who stated that the petitioner had been indulging in such nefarious activities with other women too and after learning this, the prosecutrix could muster-up her courage and thereafter accompanied by husband, she lodged the FIR. 4. I have heard Shri Bipin C. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and gone through the records of the case produced by ASI Kalam Singh, I.O., P.S. Shillai, District Sirmaur. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and, therefore, the petitioner deserves no leniency. The prosecutrix is about 32 years and has grown-up children. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and, therefore, the petitioner deserves no leniency. The prosecutrix is about 32 years and has grown-up children. At this stage, it appears that the allegations against the petitioner though can be termed as serious, yet they relate back to the year 2007 and thereafter. The silence of the prosecutrix for such a long period of time is definitely required to be viewed with an eye of suspicion and the veracity of such allegations can only be tested during the course of trial. At this stage, it would not be proper for me to make any comment on the conduct of the prosecutrix, lest it hampers the prosecution case. Suffice it to say that the allegations have to be taken with a pinch of salt because there is something more than what meets the eye. 6. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Sirmaur and is, otherwise, the nephew of the prosecutrix and thus the chances of petitioner fleeing from justice are remote. The petitioner is otherwise having roots in the society. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 13/2014 registered on 31.03.2014, at Police Station, Shillai, District Sirmaur, under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Paonta Sahib, subject to the following conditions :- (i) it is clarified that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation; (ii) he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iii) he shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Paonta Sahib, is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG./Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 8. Any observation made here-in-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 here-in-above. Petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.