Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 24 (HP)

Gulshan v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2017-01-09

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. (Oral)—The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 58 of 2016, dated 01.04.2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place and no purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, complainant Raj Kumar by made a complaint, dated 01.04.2016, to the police alleged that on 31.03.2016 his daughter, aged about 13 years, went on to school for her 6th class result, however, she did not return. She was searched in the near relation and it was suspected that she was kidnapped by someone. It is further contended that earlier on 02.09.2014, complainant came to the police station alleging that wrong act had been done with his daughter and he wanted to medically examine her. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner without her consent on the pretext of marrying her. It has further come in the prosecution story that a MMS of the prosecutrix was also prepared by the petitioner and his uncle. The petitioner was arrested on 02.04.2016 since then he is in judicial custody. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he may be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed heinous crime and he be not released on bail. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, the material which has come on record as well as the fact that he is resident of the place and is not in a position to flee from justice in case he is released on bail. 6. At this moment, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, the material which has come on record as well as the fact that he is resident of the place and is not in a position to flee from justice in case he is released on bail. Thus, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner, so it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, in case FIR No. 58 of 2016, dated 01.04.2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.