IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Balinder Kumar alias Bikku – Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent Cr.MP(M) No.: 472 of 2014 Decided on: 28.04.2014 Advocates Appeared : For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : M/s D.S. Nainta and Virender Verma, Additional Advocates General. JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and Investigating Officer, ASI Ramesh Chand of Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra has produced the record. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No.354 of 2013 registered against him under Sections 366, 376, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra. 4. The only allegations against him are that principal accused Jagtar Singh, who allegedly met the prosecutrix had kidnapped the prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship intentionally to compel her to have sexual intercourse with him and had taken to Railway Station at Pathankot on his motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR51Y-0512, it is he, who brought back the motor-cycle to village Bhadroa after said Jagtar Singh boarded the train with her for Ludhiana. Although the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. has not implicated the accused-petitioner nor disclosed his name, yet, the allegation that it is he who has brought the motor-cycle back from Railway Station, Pathankot and when she requested him to take her also back to her native place, he refused to do so, she for the first time disclosed in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 5. It is seen that the prosecutrix being aged 19 years can reasonably be believed to have understood the implications of her joining the company of the accused to Pathankot on his motor-cycle and thereafter to Ludhiana. Again it can reasonably be believed that had she not been interested in joining the company of the said accused, would have raised alarm to invite the intention of the people present on the railway station to get her saved from the clutches of the accused. The railway station is a busy place; judicial notice of this fact can be taken. The railway station is a busy place; judicial notice of this fact can be taken. Had the accused-petitioner been present at railway station, Pathankot and met the complainant-prosecutrix there, she would have said so at the very first opportunity available to her, i.e. in her statement recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There are no allegations of harassment of the prosecutrix at his instance. The accused-petitioner, therefore, at the most, can be said to have facilitated the commission of offence by the principal accused Jagtar Singh. 6. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in this case on 5th January, 2014. He is no more required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. The police has already filed the challan against him. He being permanent resident of district Kangra can also be believed to have roots in the society. This Court, therefore, see no reason that he will abscond or jump over the bail and will not be available during the course of further proceedings in this case or trial if admitted on bail. Otherwise also, in order to secure the presence of the accused, his movements can be restricted by imposing suitable conditions upon him. 7. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this application, is allowed. Consequently, it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with the case registered against him vide FIR No.354 of 2013, shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra and abiding by further conditions that: He shall; (a) join the interrogation if required to do so and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not tamper or hamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever; (c) not make any inducement, threat or promises 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; and (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 8. 8. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 9. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The application stands accordingly disposed of.