Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1002 (HP)

Manju v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-28

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 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. 61 of 2018, dated 05.05.2018, under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping her behind the bars for an unlimited period, so she be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 04.05.2018 police had a tip off that some girls, who are from Chandigarh, are involved in prostitution and the petitioner is their agent. Upon this, police laid a trap and HC Ashish was sent to Rohru as a customer with forty currency notes of Rs.100/-. At about 10:30 p.m. HC Ashish informed at Police Station, Rohru, that he came in contact with the petitioner and she had produced a girl before him. He has further informed that he gave currency notes of Rs.100/-, total amounting to Rs.4000/- to the petitioner. HC Ashish has further informed that he has taken both the petitioner and that girl to Hotel Sunrise in Room No. 211. Upon this information, a police team went to Room No.211 of Hotel Sunrise and in the said room the petitioner, a girl and HC Ashish were present. On personal search of the petitioner currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-, totaling rupees four thousand, were recovered. Police completed all the codal formalities. During the course of investigation it was unearthed that the petitioner brought that another girl from Rohru and During Rohru fair the petitioner earned money through prostitution. A case came to be registered against the petitioner and she was arrested on 05.05.2018. Now, the petitioner is in judicial custody. As per the prosecution, the challan is yet to be presented in the Court. A case came to be registered against the petitioner and she was arrested on 05.05.2018. Now, the petitioner is in judicial custody. As per the prosecution, the challan is yet to be presented in the Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case she is released on bail she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent. She is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping her behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, which shall be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the application be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence and in case she is released on bail, she may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so she may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, after carefully going through the records and the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner is neither a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. This Court also, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will only be met in case she enlarged on bail. This Court also, after taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period and the ends of justice will only be met in case she enlarged on bail. Thus, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in her favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in connection with FIR No. 61 of 2018, dated 05.05.2018, under Section 3, 5, 7 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., she shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.