Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 530 (HP)

Asha v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-05-16

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 74 of 2017, dated 18.03.2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Section 18 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. 2. As per the petitioners, they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 18.03.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) got her statement recorded before the police under Section 154 Cr.PC., wherein she stated that on 04.03.2017, around 09:30 a.m., her aunty, Asha (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 580 of 2017) telephoned her and asked to accompany her to Chamba. The prosecutrix accompanied her aunty to Chamba where petitioner, Asha, gave her two capsules, as she (prosecutrix) was ill, which she swallowed. Thereafter, petitioner, Aha, alongwith her mami, took the prosecutrix towards Sultanpur in a jeep like vehicle. As per the prosecutrix, she felt giddiness and she regained her consciousness at Pathankot Railway Station and she was boarded in a train. Thereafter, the prosecutrix regained her consciousness in a room at place called Gobindgarh Mandi. At that time, the petitioner (Asha), her mami and other relatives were present there. The prosecutrix asked them that why she was taken here, then they replied that they wanted to marry her. On this, the prosecutrix refused to get married, so she was locked in a room. The prosecutrix was thrashed and threatened, thus she yielded to the pressure exerted upon her and she finally agreed to marry one Rinku (co-accused), who is real brother of her aunty. On 11.03.2017 she was married with Rinku in a Gurudwara. Ravinder (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 581 of 2017), who is elder brother of Rinku, was also present in the marriage. The prosecutrix, on 12.03.2017, escaped from there and met one Nisha, who alongwith other females, took her to police station. Thereafter, on 13.03.2017, Virnder Gupta @ Kaka, Ex. On 11.03.2017 she was married with Rinku in a Gurudwara. Ravinder (petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 581 of 2017), who is elder brother of Rinku, was also present in the marriage. The prosecutrix, on 12.03.2017, escaped from there and met one Nisha, who alongwith other females, took her to police station. Thereafter, on 13.03.2017, Virnder Gupta @ Kaka, Ex. Pradhan, Subhash, Ward Member, Rakesh, Uncle and her brother took her to Chamba. As per the prosecution, due to fear she did not divulge the incident earlier. Police carried out the investigation and the prosecutrix was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. All the accused, involved in the commission of the crime, were arrested. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation spot map was prepared and recoveries were made. As per the prosecution, the investigation in the case is complete and challan is under scrutiny. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice. Investigation in the present matter is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He has also argued that co-accused Rinku Thakur has already been enlarged on bail. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious offence and in case they are enlarged on bail they may threaten the prosecutrix and may also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so he prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail. 6. Manifestly, co-accused Rinku Thakur, to whom the prosecutrix was allegedly married, has already been enlarged on bail, on 25.04.2017, by Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5. I have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and the police report in detail. 6. Manifestly, co-accused Rinku Thakur, to whom the prosecutrix was allegedly married, has already been enlarged on bail, on 25.04.2017, by Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Keeping in view the facts that co-accused, Rinku Thakur, has already been enlarged on bail, the petitioners are residents of the place, they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor to flee from justice and the fact that investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioners, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail is required to be exercised in their favour. Therefore, it is ordered that the petitioners be released forthwith on bail, on their furnishing personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court, in case FIR No. 74 of 2017, dated 18.03.2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506, 120B IPC, Section 18 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences, Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners 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 petitions are disposed of.