Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 896 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. State of H. P.

2015-07-15

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral) The bail petitioner is in judicial custody for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the IPC recorded in FIR No.156/2015 of 01.05.2015 registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Chamba, H.P. hence, the instant bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., has been filed by him for releasing him from judicial custody wherein he is presently lodged. 2. The Investigating Officer is present in Court and has filed a detailed status report. It has been incisively perused. It discloses the evident fact of the bail applicant as well as the prosecutrix being major. The prosecutrix is aged 28 years. She for a prolonged duration stretching upto three years had permitted the bail applicant to sexually access her. The consent as meted out by the prosecutrix to the bail applicant to sexually access her is espoused by the learned Deputy Advocate General to be on the pretext of marriage or allurement of marriage proffered by the bail applicant to her. He also contends that even the said pretext was in its entirety false constituted by the fact that the bail applicant was then married, hence was incapacitated to fulfill the promise of marriage or allurement of marriage meted out by him to the prosecutrix. The imminent fact of the prosecutrix having permitted the bail applicant to sexually access her for a prolonged duration stretching upto three years does give leeway to an easy inference that when at the earliest or at the initial stage of hers succumbing to the sexual overtures of the bail applicant on the purported pretext of marriage or allurement of marriage having been meted out by the bail applicant to her and the bail applicant having omitted to upto three years carry out or fulfill his promise yet the prosecutrix having permitted the bail applicant to successively sexually access, that hence the effect or the impact of the pretext of marriage even if false as meted out by the bail applicant to the prosecutrix stood waned as well as subsided. Moreover, even if, the bail applicant was married at the time of his meting out a promise of marriage or allurement of marriage to the prosecutrix on the strength whereof the prosecutrix permitted him to sexually access her yet the imminent fact of hers having inordinately prolonged her permission to the bail applicant to sexually access her does obviously render upon a conclusion, especially when their habitations are inter se located at a distance of 40 kilometers, besides when she repeatedly visited Chamba, she could easily have gauged or fathomed the truth or veracity of the factum whereunder she was permitting the bail applicant to sexually access her. Naturally, when she omitted to discover the falsity or the truth of the pretext despite hers visiting Chamba and hers interacting over the mobile phone of the bail applicant, does rather constrain this Court to conclude that the prosecutrix when could have known earlier the marital status of the bail applicant, she is concealing the fact of hers having known the marital status of the bail applicant and which precluded him to accomplish the promise of marriage as meted out by him to her or then she has concocted, besides has engineered a wholly false story in the FIR lodged at her instance qua the prolonged duration of the sexual intercourses which occurred inter se her and the bail applicant stretching over a period of three years being the out come of the pretext of marriage proffered by the bail applicant to her. An aggravated momentum to the aforesaid inference is lent by the fact that she had for an inordinate period of three years continuously permitted the bail applicant to sexually access her even when she could earlier have not relented to the sexual overtures of the bail applicant even when he after the initial sexual encounter with her had not fulfilled the promise of marriage meted out by him to her. Her repeated sexual indulgences thereafter with the bail applicant wanes the effect, if any, of the pretext under which she initially succumbed to the sexual overtures of the bail applicant. Consequently, this Court holds with formidability that the prosecutrix prima facie has constituted false allegations against the bail applicant. 3. Her repeated sexual indulgences thereafter with the bail applicant wanes the effect, if any, of the pretext under which she initially succumbed to the sexual overtures of the bail applicant. Consequently, this Court holds with formidability that the prosecutrix prima facie has constituted false allegations against the bail applicant. 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion and when at this stage no material has been placed on record by the prosecution disclosing that in case the facility of bail is accorded to the bail applicant, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence. Consequently, the instant application is allowed and the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail applicant subject to his complying with the following conditions:- (i) that the bail applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba.; (ii) that the bail applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Agency; (iii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iv) that he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court ; (v) that he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the SHO, Police Station concerned; 4. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the case.