Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1191 (HP)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-02

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Consequent upon the order passed on the previous date, Ms. Kiran Bala, Inspector/SHO, Women Police Station, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P.), is present in person and has filed the status report. According to her, no CCTV Cameras is installed in the Police Station. However, according to her, consequent upon the order passed in this application on 25.06.2018, the accused-petitioner has visited the Police Station on 26.06.2018 at 11.00 a.m., but well before that, Inspector Sarav Dayal had left for Shimla alongwith record which was sought to be produced in this Court on the previous date, i.e. 27.06.2018. Also that the accused-petitioner was interrogated though not by her but by Head Constable Satya Devi on that day. The status report filed on the previous date that the accused-petitioner had absconded and even did not reported for interrogation on the direction of this Court, also according to her came to be made on account of communication gap. 2. Any how, now the accused-petitioner has been interrogated in this case. As per the status report filed, no recovery is required to be made from him. The apprehension of the Investigating Agency, however, is that in case he is released on bail, may terrorise the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence. 3. Without lamenting much on the merits and avoiding the detailed discussion, as in that event, prejudice is likely to be caused to the case of either party suffice would it to say that relations between the complainant and accused-petitioner seem to be not cordial. She has left the matrimonial home allegedly on account of her harassment and torturing not only by the accused-petitioner but his parents also and residing in a rented accommodation with her daughter and son. The accused-petitioner is also residing with her in the said rented accommodation, it is difficult to believe so at this stage. Therefore, putting him behind bar particularly when no recovery is to be effected from him and he is available to the police for interrogation is not warranted. 4. True it is that the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner are very heinous and serious in nature, however, at the same time his freedom and liberty also need to be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, the Court has also to balance the freedom and liberty of an offender viz-a-viz the offence he committed. 4. True it is that the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner are very heinous and serious in nature, however, at the same time his freedom and liberty also need to be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, the Court has also to balance the freedom and liberty of an offender viz-a-viz the offence he committed. An offender has to be believed innocent until or unless held otherwise guilty on conclusion of the trial against him. It is again well established that grant of bail is rule, whereas refusal is exception. The present in the given facts and circumstances, is not an exceptional case. 5. The accused-petitioner is a local resident of District Kangra (H.P.). He has his relations in District Kangra. Therefore, it can reasonably be believed that he has roots in the society. There is also no likelihood of his fleeing away from justice, if released on bail. 6. In view of what has stated hereinabove, this application is allowed. Consequently, the accused-petitioner, in the event of his arrest in the case, registered against him vide FIR No.12/2018, in Women Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P.), under Sections 354-A and 506 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, he shall be released on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer/SHO, Women Police Station, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P.). He shall further abide by the following conditions; That he shall:- (a). make himself available for interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation in a manner so as to take it to its logical end; (b). not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (c). not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police officer; and (d). not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 7. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him; the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 7. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him; the Investigating Agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 8. The observations hereinabove shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition and have no bearing on the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.