Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 530 (HP)

Ravi Kumar @ Chimnu v. State of H. P.

2015-05-15

P.S.RANA

body2015
Order P.S. Rana, J. Present bail petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for grant of bail in connection with FIR No. 162 of 2013 dated 31.5.2013 registered under Section 366, 376, 511, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at P.S. Nurpur District Kangra (H.P.) 2. It is pleaded that bail petition be allowed because there is difference in statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and tatima statement. It is further pleaded that bail petition be allowed because trial will take long time to conclude. It is also pleaded that witnesses have not supported the prosecution story as alleged by prosecution and on this ground bail application be allowed. It is pleaded that police officials did not catch the original culprits and implicate the petitioner falsely in present case. It is pleaded that false case is filed because hot altercation took place between co-accused Rakesh Kumar alias Mahashu and police and due to anger Rakesh Kumar @ Mahashu slapped on the face of police officials. It is further pleaded that there is no call detail on record and on this ground bail petition be allowed. It is pleaded that statement of prosecutrix and other material witnesses already stood recorded by learned trial Court. It is pleaded that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of bail petition sought. 3. Per contra police report filed. As per police report, on dated 31.5.2013 prosecutrix was going to sewing work and when she reached at Makodjaman at 9.40 AM then a Scorpio vehicle white in colour came from behind and same was stopped. There is recital in police report that in vehicle four boys were sitting out of whom two boys came down from vehicle and one of them gagged mouth of prosecutrix while other boy caught the prosecutrix from her hairs and under duress they pushed the prosecutrix inside the vehicle and took the prosecutrix inside the vehicle. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the vehicle was took towards Rehan via Nurpur. There is further recital in police report that prosecutrix tried her best to save herself from the clutches of accused persons but all accused persons threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the vehicle was took towards Rehan via Nurpur. There is further recital in police report that prosecutrix tried her best to save herself from the clutches of accused persons but all accused persons threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences. There is recital in police report that one of co-accused picked up a knife and told the prosecutrix that in case she makes hue and cry then she would be killed. There is further recital in police report that in the meanwhile all four boys started molesting the prosecutrix. There is also recital in police report that one boy put off the clothes of prosecutrix and tried to rape the prosecutrix. There is further recital in police report that when prosecutrix restricted about act of sexual assault then clothes of prosecutrix were given back to her. There is further recital in police report that thereafter the vehicle was stopped at village Kehar and two of boys went outside the vehicle to take the water and thereafter prosecutrix came out of vehicle and cried loudly upon which all four boys took away the vehicle and went away. There is further recital in police report that challan stood filed in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Dharamshala on dated 29.7.2013. Prayer for dismissal of bail petition sought. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner and also perused the record. 5. Following points arise for determination in this bail petition:- 1. Whether bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of bail petition? 2. Final Order. Findings on Point No.1 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that there is contradiction in statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and in statements recorded by learned trial Court and on this ground bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that trial is under process and some of prosecution witnesses are still to be examined by learned trial Court. Court is of the opinion that if there is any material contradiction in testimonies of prosecution witnesses same would be appreciated by learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of case. Court is of the opinion that trial is under process and some of prosecution witnesses are still to be examined by learned trial Court. Court is of the opinion that if there is any material contradiction in testimonies of prosecution witnesses same would be appreciated by learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of case. Court is of the opinion that at this stage it is not expedient in the ends of justice to appreciate the evidence recorded by learned trial Court as same would prejudice the merits of case. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and on this ground bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that fact whether there are major contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses or not will be examined by learned trial Court when case would be disposed of on merits. At this stage it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any finding upon merits of case when criminal case is under process of prosecution evidence. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there will be delay in conclusion of trial and on this ground bail petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that direction will be given to learned trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously because petitioner is in judicial custody and criminal case requires expeditious disposal. 9. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that hot altercation took place between co-accused Rakesh Kumar and police officials and due to anger co-accused Rakesh Kumar @ Mahashu had slapped on face of police officials and due to above stated facts false case was planted against accused persons and on this ground bail petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that in bail matters it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any finding on the merits of the case. Entire plea of accused persons will be considered by learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of criminal case on merits in accordance with law. 10. Court is of the opinion that in bail matters it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any finding on the merits of the case. Entire plea of accused persons will be considered by learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of criminal case on merits in accordance with law. 10. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that there is no call detail on record and on this ground bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any findings on merits. Court is of the opinion that if any finding is given at this stage on merits the same will prejudice the fair trial of case because prosecution has not closed its evidence and case is under the process of examination of prosecution witnesses at this stage. 11. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that if bail is not granted to petitioner then whole future of petitioner will be spoiled because age of petitioner is 28 years and petitioner is behind the bars for last 23-24 months and on this ground bail petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that no one is above the law and it is well settled law that majesty of law always prevails. It is well settled law that criminal cases are decided upon proved oral as well as documentary facts placed on record. It is also well settled law that criminal cases are not disposed of upon any sentimental feelings. It is well settled law that all criminal Courts are under legal obligation to dispose of the cases in accordance with law. 12. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that any condition imposed by Court will be binding upon the petitioner and on this ground bail petition filed by petitioner be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force. Petitioner is facing the trial of heinous offence of sexual assault punishable under Section 366, 376, 511, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Sexual assaults are increasing in the society day by day. Every woman has legal right to reside in society with honour and dignity. Petitioner is facing the trial of heinous offence of sexual assault punishable under Section 366, 376, 511, 354, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Sexual assaults are increasing in the society day by day. Every woman has legal right to reside in society with honour and dignity. No one can be allowed to sexually assault the woman in barbarous manner. Courts are under legal obligation to protect the life and liberty of women in the society in accordance with law. At the time of granting bail following factors are considered. (i) Nature and seriousness of offence (ii) The character of the evidence (iii) Circumstances which are peculiar to the accused (iv) Possibility of the presence of the accused at the trial or investigation (v) Reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with (vi) The 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. 13. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then trial of case will be adversely effected is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case trial is under process and Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released on bail at this stage then trial of case will be adversely effected. Court is of the opinion that if petitioner is released at this stage then interest of State and interest of general public will also be adversely effected. In view of above stated facts, point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final order) 14. In view of my findings on point No.1 bail petition filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. However learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously because petitioner is in judicial custody and case requires expeditious disposal. Observations made in this order will not effect the merits of case in any manner and will strictly confine for the disposal of bail petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of. Pending petition(s) if any also disposed of.