Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1603 (HP)

Khem Raj v. State Of H. P.

2018-09-05

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No. 23/2018, dated 7.2.2018, registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. 2. The respondent-State has produced the record of the investigation and has filed the status report. 3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the prosecutrix was solemnized about eight years back with one Krishnu Ram, resident of Kharli, District Bilaspur. However, relations between them became strained and thereafter, the prosecutrix came to her mother on 5.5.2007 and started residing in a rented house at Panrathi (Churag), Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi. The prosecutrix has also filed a petition against her husband under Domestic Violence Act, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog. 4. It is alleged that on 9.10.2017, the petitioner came to the mother of the prosecutrix and told that he wanted a female maid. The prosecutrix agreed to the proposal of the petitioner and an agreement to this effect was executed between the petitioner and the prosecutrix on 10.10.2017. Thereafter, the prosecutrix started doing household work for the petitioner and later on as per her own showing, they started living like husband and wife and indulged many a times in sexual intercourse. However, it appears that later on relations between them became sour, which eventually led to the filing of the present FIR. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the investigation carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix is major and was aware of the fact that the petitioner is residing separately from his wife for the last more than one decade and it is probably on account of this fact that despite considerable age difference, after entering the house of the petitioner as maid, she developed sexual relations with the petitioner for a considerable period of time; and it is only after when the relations between them became sour, the present FIR has been lodged. 7. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is accused of having committed a serious and heinous crime, but then the allegations as levelled against him have to be taken with pinch of salt, particularly when the same are considered along with factual background of the case. 8. 7. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is accused of having committed a serious and heinous crime, but then the allegations as levelled against him have to be taken with pinch of salt, particularly when the same are considered along with factual background of the case. 8. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, I find this to be a fit case where the discretion of bail ought to be exercised. Accordingly, the bail petition is allowed and the bail petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 23/2018, dated 7.2.2018, registered at Police Station, Karsog, District Mandi, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, with the following conditions: (i) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application(s); (ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (iii)He shall not 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 Court or the Police Officer; (iv) He shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the Court. 9. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. The petition stands disposed of. Copy dasti.