Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1260 (HP)

Manjit Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-10

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application has been moved by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail, in case FIR No. 367 of 2018, dated 25.05.2018, under Sections 354, 354B, 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of IT Act, registered in Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, 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 and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 25.05.2018, the prosecutrix (name withheld) made a written complaint to the police stating that she is pursuing Computer course from GTI, Nadaun. On 10.05.2018, at about 01:15 p.m., when she was sitting alone in her class, the petitioner came inside the class and showed her vulgar photos in his mobile and she saw her face in those photos. The petitioner threatened the prosecutrix to defame her. As per the prosecutrix, the photos were morphed. Thereafter, the petitioner started clicking her photos and inappropriately touched. The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother and on the subsequent day when the petitioner was asked why he did this, he again threatened to get the photos viral. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the prosecutrix, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on 25.05.2018 the petitioner was arrested. It was unearthed during the course of investigation that the petitioner uploaded the photos of the prosecutrix on whatsapp, so his mobile phone was taken into possession and sent to RFSL, Dharamshala. Statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Investigation in the matter is still going on and in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 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. Lastly, the prosecution has prayed that the bail application may be dismissed. 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 resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The petitioner has committed a serious offence, thus it is prayed that the bail 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, so he be released on bail. 7. At this moment, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is resident of the place, considering the nature of the offence and also the overall aspects of the case, which have come on record, and the fact that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, in case FIR No. 367 of 2018, dated 25.05.2018, under Sections 354, 354B, 506 IPC and Section 67(A) of IT Act, registered in Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions : (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as 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. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions : (i) That the petitioner will join investigation of the case as 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. 8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.