Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1133 (HP)

Arif Iqbal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-06-20

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. 525 of 2017, dated 25.12.2017, under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC and, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is resident of the place, 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 him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.12.2017 the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police, wherein she alleged that the petitioner used to stalk her. The prosecutrix told the petitioner that she is already married, but the petitioner did not mend his ways. The petitioner got the phone number of the prosecutrix and they used to talk her. In the month of April, 2017, the petitioner asked the prosecutrix to come to Ranbaxy Chowk, where the petitioner gave a chocolate to the prosecutrix and after eating the same she became unconscious. When the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she found herself naked in a room of Arsh Paying Guest and the petitioner was also there. The prosecutrix told him that she would report the matter to the police, but the petitioner showed her obscene video and he threatened to get the video viral. Thereafter, on the pretext of that video the petitioner sexually assaulted the prosecutrix many times. When the prosecutrix avoided the telephonic calls of the petitioner, he came to her muhalla. The petitioner on the pretext of that video blackmailed her and also gave beatings to her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. The petitioner was arrested and two mobile phones of the petitioner were taken into possession. The petitioner was medically examined and the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. During the course of investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. The petitioner was arrested and two mobile phones of the petitioner were taken into possession. The petitioner was medically examined and the prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Mobile phone of the petitioner was sent to SFSL, Junga, for forensic analysis and report thereof is awaited. 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 he is released on bail he 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. He is resident of the place and 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 him 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 he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the application of the petitioner 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 resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he be enlarged on bail. 7. 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 resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the overall aspects of the case, the material which has come on record, the age of prosecutrix, age of the petitioner and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be allowed to be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the petitioner is resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. Therefore, 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 his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police, in case FIR No. 525 of 2017, dated 25.12.2017, under Sections 376, 328 and 506 IPC and, registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., he shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ^25,000/- (rupees twenty five 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. (iv) In case the petitioner tries to interfere with the prosecution evidence in whatsoever manner, even remotely, the prosecution can approach this Court for recalling of this order. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.