Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1548 (HP)

Amar Chand v. State of H. P.

2015-10-16

SANJAY KAROL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the status report and Investigating Officer, SI Lal Chand, P.S. Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has produced the record. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 219/14, dated 15.7.2014, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In nutshell, the allegation is that on 15.7.2014, while prosecutrix was working in the fields, at about 2.30 p.m., accused subjected her to sexual intercourse. Her relatives noticed the same and reported the matter to her mother, whereafter FIR was lodged. 5. At this stage, it would not be prudent to discuss the merits of the case and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, for it may prejudice the case of either of the parties. 6. However, suffice it to say that the accused, who was just 18 years of age, has been behind bars for more than one year. Investigation is complete. Challan stands filed and the prosecutrix, who is elder in age (23 years) as compared to the accused, cannot be influenced by the accused. He is a permanent resident of District Kullu; lives with his family and is not likely to flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. No evidence can be tampered with by him. Medical evidence produced on record is an additional factor, which weighs with the Court. Whether the accused was known to the prosecutrix from before; having intimacy; the alleged act was consensual or not; are matters left to be decided by the trial Court after appreciation of evidence. 7. Learned counsel in the given facts and circumstances seeks liberal interpretation so that the personal liberty of the accused is not affected at this stage when he is yet to be tried by the competent Court. It is well settled that at the time of consideration of an application of this nature, the availability of the offender for the purpose of investigation and ultimately at the time of trial should be the paramount consideration. 8. There is no likelihood of the accused jumping the bail or absconding during the period of trial, which is in progress. 9. Reference can also be made to the decisions rendered by this Court in Swaran Singh Vs. 8. There is no likelihood of the accused jumping the bail or absconding during the period of trial, which is in progress. 9. Reference can also be made to the decisions rendered by this Court in Swaran Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; Ravi alias Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P., 2010(1) Him.L.R. 154; and CRMPM No. 268 of 2014, titled as Anil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 21.3.2014. 10. The application is, therefore, allowed. Consequently, it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with this case, is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. He shall abide by further conditions that: He shall; (a) Regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (b) not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor 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; (c) keep on visiting and informing the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kullu, about his whereabouts on any day in the first week of each and every calendar month till the statements of the material witnesses are recorded; and (d) not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 11. 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. 12. 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 application alone. Application stands disposed of accordingly.