Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1690 (HP)

Thakur Singh v. State of H. P.

2015-11-18

P.S.RANA

body2015
ORDER : P.S.Rana, J. Present bail application is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. relating to FIR No. 39/2015 dated 12.9.2015 registered under Sections 366, 370, 376 and 506 IPC and under Section 8 POCSO Act 2012 in police station Rekong Peo District Kinnaur H.P. 2. It is pleaded that false FIR is registered against petitioner. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not required for any kind of investigation and custodial interrogation. It is further pleaded that investigation and trial will take considerable time. It is further pleaded that petitioner will suffer unbearable hardship if bail is not granted. It is further pleaded that petitioner is sole bread earner in his family. It is further pleaded that petitioner will not influence prosecution witnesses and will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witnesses. It is further pleaded that petitioner will not tamper with prosecution evidence. It is further pleaded that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of bail sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. There is recital in police report that petitioner Thakur Dass and co-accused Rajesh Kumar took two un-married girls in a maruti vehicle having registration No. HP-25A-2363 and thereafter petitioner Thakur Dass had committed rape upon prosecutrix. There is further recital in police report that coaccused Rajesh had committed offence under Section 366, 370 and 354A IPC and under section 8 of Pocso Act 2012 with another minor prosecutrix. There is further recital in police report that statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC also recorded before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. There is further recital in police report that as per location shown by prosecutrix site plan was prepared. There is further recital in police report that birth certificate of prosecutrix also obtained from gram panchayat Pangi. There is further recital in police report that accused persons Thakur Dass and Rajesh Kumar are married persons. There is further recital in police report that in case bail is granted to petitioner then petitioner will threat prosecution witnesses and investigation will be adversely effected. There is further recital in police report that till date report of SFSL Junga not received. Prayer for dismissal of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner. 5. There is further recital in police report that till date report of SFSL Junga not received. Prayer for dismissal of bail application sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner. 5. Following points arise for determination in present bail application. (1) Whether bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail application?. (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that applicant is innocent and he did not commit any offence cannot be decided at this stage. Same fact will be decided when case shall be decided on its merits by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is sole bread earner of the family and he will not influence prosecution witnesses and any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon petitioner and on this ground bail application be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of granting bail following factors are to be considered (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) Character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) A reasonable possibility of the presence of accused not being secured at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) Larger interests of the public or the State. See AIR 1978 SC 179 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration. Also see AIR 1962 SC 253 titled The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh. Allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature relating to commission of rape upon prosecutrix. It is well settled law that rape is not only crime against the person of woman but it is crime against entire society. It is well settled law that rape destroys entire psychology of a woman and pushed woman into deep emotional crisis. It is well settled law that rape is not only crime against the person of woman but it is crime against entire society. It is well settled law that rape destroys entire psychology of a woman and pushed woman into deep emotional crisis. It is well settled law that rape is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim most cherished fundamental rights i.e. the right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. See AIR 1996 SC 922 titled Sh Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs. Miss Subhra Chakroborty. In view of the fact that allegations against the petitioner are very heinous and grave in nature and in view of the fact that investigation is in the initial stage of case it is held that if applicant is released on bail at this stage then investigation of the case will be adversely effected. It is held that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then interest of State and general public will also be adversely effected. It is well settled law that murder destroys the body of victim but rapist degrades the soul of prosecutrix. 8. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if the petitioner is released on bail then petitioner will induce and threat prosecution witnesses and on this ground bail application be rejected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is apprehension in the mind of Court that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then petitioner will induce or threat prosecution witnesses. In view of above stated facts it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to release petitioner on bail at this stage of case. Point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of finding in point No.1 bail application filed by petitioner is rejected. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and it shall not effect merits of case in any manner. Bail application disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.