Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 199 (HP)

Anil Kumar v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-02-16

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J —The Petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.8/18 dated 20.1.2018, registered at Police Station Ramshehar, Solan Distt. Solan under Sections 363, 354A, 506 & 34 IPC &Sec.8 of POCSO Act. 2. In the instant case, initially FIR No. 8 of 2018 dated 20.1.2018 was lodged on the basis of written complaint filed by father of victim on 20.1.2018 under Section 363 read with Section 34 I.P.C in Police Station Ramshehar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Thereafter, petitioner (aged 19 years) alongwith co-accused was arrested and was enlarged on bail by the trial Court on 21.1.2018. Thereafter, on 22.1.2018, on the basis of statement of victim, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C without oath, Sections 354-A, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act were added. Apprehending his arrest, after inclusion of these sections, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Today status report has been filed and record has also been produced by the Investigating Officer. 4. Perusal of record indicates that on 20.1.2018, Parminder Kumar, father of the victim, accompanying the victim, approached the Police Station Ramshehar by submitting an application stated therein that his thirteen years old daughter had gone to attend the school, was taken away by Manjeet Singh and petitioner Anil Kumar by alluring her after instigating to come at Nalagarh at 8.00 A.M after stealing Rs.30, 000/- from the house and they made her to purchase clothes from a shop at Nalagarh and when they were kidnapping victim near hospital, they were intercepted by them and his daughter was brought back and Manjeet Singh was also apprehended at Ramshahar road. Thereafter, statement of victim was also recorded , wherein she had stated that on 20.1.2018, she had left her house with Rs.5000/- without informing anybody and Rs.2, 000/- were given to her by the petitioner, Anil Kumar and with the said amount she purchased clothes and Manjit Singh provided her mobile phone. The father of the victim had also produced clothes and phone before the police, whereas, in her statement on 22.1.2018, victim had stated that on 19.1.2018, petitioner had given Rs.2000/-to her and asked her to come at Nalagarh in school dress without informing her parents and next day he met her in front of her shop and asked her to board the bus . Thereafter, she reached Nalagarh and petitioner also came there on bike and on his asking, she purchased the clothes from the shop. After purchasing clothes, petitioner took her to bus stand and went to bring the vehicle of co-accused Manjeet Singh and at that time she heard Anil Kumar talking with someone to bring the vehicle to kidnap her from Baddi to Delhi and thereafter, petitioner asked her to wait outside the hospital, where she was noticed by her aunt(bua) and Uncle, who had come from Chandigarh in their vehicle and they brought her back. Thereafter, she alleged that earlier also petitioner had sexually harassed her by touching her private parts and had also threatened that on disclosing the same in her house, she will be killed. It is further alleged by the victim that complete statement was not recorded by the lady police but she was slapped. In this statement, victim had also stated that the petitioner had also asked her to bring Rs.30, 000/- without telling anybody and in case of such disclosure, he had threatened to kill her brother. 5. It appears from the status report filed by the police that no such allegations were made by the victim on 20.1.2018. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C also in the beginning, she had stated that petitioner had given Rs 2000/- to her but remained completely silent about bringing of Rs 5, 000/- by her from her house and in later part of this statement, she had introduced story of Rs 30, 000/- Her version prima-facie is not reconciliable. Though, the evidence on merit is to be appreciated by the trial Court on conclusion of trial. However, in aforesaid facts and circumstance, in my opinion it is fit case for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 8 of 2018 , dated 20.1.2018 registered at police Station Ramshehar, Distt. Solan, under Sections 363 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C, on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, under Sections 363 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C, on his furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, 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 caseso as to dissuade him from disclosing such factsto 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, iv) that the petitioner shall not misuse their liberty in any manner, v) that the petitioner shall furnish personal and surety bond within two weeks from today, 7. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan 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.