Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 196 (HP)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-02-16

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of his bail in case FIR No. 17/18, registered under Sections 363 and 366A IPC on 30.1.2018 in Police Station, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Fresh status report stands filed and record has also been produced. 3. On 29.1.2018 complainant Naresh Kumar approached the Police Station Theog by submitting a written complaint stating therein that his 17 years old daughter was missing from house and suspected that Suresh Kumar had kidnapped his daughter, as earlier also he had tried to kidnap her, but the said incident was averted by them by counseling their daughter. It was also stated that as per information received, Suresh Kumar had kidnapped his daughter in vehicle of his brother-in-law Sanjay (petitioner) who, on inquiry, had only disclosed that Suresh Kumar had borrowed his vehicle at about 4:00 P.M. on the pretext of some urgent work. Involvement of petitioner Sanjay (brother-in-law of Suresh Kumar) in the incident was also suspected. 4. As per police report on 30.1.2018 victim alongwith Suresh Kumar appeared in the Police Station, whereafter on her medical examination, it was opined by the doctor that possibility of sexual abuse could not be ruled out. On 2.2.2018 statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein she stated that she was violated forcibly and she was kidnapped on 28.1.2018 and taken towards Sirmour in a vehicle brought by Suresh Kumar whose sister Seema and her husband Sanjay (petitioner) were also stated to be responsible for her kidnapping as Suresh Kumar had kidnapped her in vehicle of petitioner. On the basis of statement of victim, petitioner Sanjay Kumar alias Sanjeev was arrested on 3.2.2018 and now he is in judicial custody. Hence present petition. 5. In the initial complaint, filed by father of victim on 29.1.2018, allegation against petitioner is that Suresh Kumar had taken victim in a vehicle belonging to petitioner Sanjay Kumar. It is only in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by victim; involvement of petitioner in her kidnapping was mentioned by stating therein that Sanjeev (petitioner) and Seema were behind her kidnapping. At this stage, there is nothing on record to reflect active involvement of the petitioner in kidnapping of victim. It is only in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by victim; involvement of petitioner in her kidnapping was mentioned by stating therein that Sanjeev (petitioner) and Seema were behind her kidnapping. At this stage, there is nothing on record to reflect active involvement of the petitioner in kidnapping of victim. On the contrary father of victim had himself stated in his statement made at the first instance that on earlier occasion also such an incident was averted by them wisely by counseling their daughter and there is no allegation qua the involvement of Sanjeev (petitioner) or Seema in that incident. In the instant incident, the only link between petitioner with commission of offence is that vehicle belonging to him was borrowed by his brother-in-law Suresh Kumar for traveling with victim. In FIR itself, father of victim had stated that Sanjay alias Sanjeev had informed him about borrowing of his vehicle by Suresh Kumar. Further, it is not the case of prosecution that victim was recovered by the police or her parents, but in present case victim along with main accused Suresh Kumar had appeared in the Police Station themselves at their own. Accused Suresh Kumar arrested by the police is in judicial custody and petitioner is also in judicial custody and there is nothing on record to reflect that his further interrogation much less custodial interrogation is required. Though veracity of entire evidence is to be appreciated by the trial Court on completion of trial, however, prima facie there is no convincing material on record warranting rejection of bail application of petitioner rather, in my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of bail. 6. Though veracity of entire evidence is to be appreciated by the trial Court on completion of trial, however, prima facie there is no convincing material on record warranting rejection of bail application of petitioner rather, in my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of bail. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 17 of 2018, dated 30.1.2018, registered at police Station Theog, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. under Sections 363 and 366A of I.P.C, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ''50, 000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., with the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall 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 Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses; (iii) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. (iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. 7. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013. 8. 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. Petition stands disposed of. Copy Dasti.