Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 90 (HP)

Saravjeet @ Pappu v. State o f H. P.

2015-02-06

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Tarlok Chauhan, Judge (oral). The petitioner approached this Court for grant of bail in case FIR No. 105 of 2014 registered at Police Station, Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P on 20.6.2014 under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, 323, 506 and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 4,6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court on 30.1.2015, the respondent-State has produced the records of investigation and has also filed the status report. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 3. It appears that father of the prosecutrix lodged the aforesaid FIR on the allegations that his daughter aged about 16 years had left from home for going to her maternal uncle’s home at Charri at about 6.30 p.m. on 16.6.2014. On 18.6.2014, it transpired that she had not reached there and therefore he alongwith his wife searched for the prosecutrix but in vain. It is alleged that during the search, few mobile numbers were found to be written there on the paper and the said numbers were tried by him but all of them were found to be switched off. It is later on that the prosecutrix came to be recovered from the house of one Naseeb Singh on 25.6.2014 and was handed over to her parents. In her statement recorded on the same day, she made various allegations against the co-accused but in so-far-as the present petitioner is concerned, the only allegation against him was that he had threatened the prosecutrix over the telephone. Records of the investigation do not support the version of the prosecutrix and that fact is sufficient to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly in this view of matter, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. Records of the investigation do not support the version of the prosecutrix and that fact is sufficient to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly in this view of matter, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra, on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required 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 filling appropriate application; (ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise 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 (iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Kangra is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court vide communication No. HHC.VIG/MIsc.instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013. 6. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. Petition stands disposed of.