Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 301 (HP)

Yob Raj v. State of H. P.

2018-03-12

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release, in case FIR No. 09 of 2017, dated 26.4.2017, under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (a) of the Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu, 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 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, the petitioner developed relations with the prosecutrix and after taking photographs started blackmailing her and even relationship, the petitioner pressurizing the prosecutrix and thereby keeps on calling the prosecutrix, as and when, he wanted. Ultimately, when the petitioner sent whatsapp messages to a place, where the prosecutrix was going to engage for marriage, case was registered against the petitioner. 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 taking into consideration the fact that whatsapp conversation between the petitioner and prosecutrix, it is clear that the petitioner and prosecutrix were having love affair and the petitioner is just falsely implicated in the present case, due to poor condition of the petitioner, as family of the prosecutrix is affluent and they do not want to marry their daughter with the petitioner. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that taking into consideration the way the offence was committed and the seriousness of the offence, the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. 6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, taking into considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than eleven months and also taking into consideration other aspects, which have come on record, this Court finds that the petitioner and prosecutrix were in relations, as per the prosecution case and they were on continuous touch with each other and also the fact that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner, who has been arrested by the police of Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in connection with FIR No. 09 of 2017, dated 26.4.2017, under Sections 376, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 (a) of the Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Kullu, District Kullu H.P. be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required. (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.